PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PERUVIAN CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES, (MESSAGE)

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that I have received the following letter, addressed to the House of Commons, from the Peruvian Chamber of of Deputies, which, for greater accuracy, I have had translated:
Peruvian Chamber of Deputies,
Lima.
December 31, 1943.
To the Speaker
of the House of Commons,
London.
In their session of to-day the Peruvian Chamber of Deputies passed the following motion on the agenda:
The Peruvian Chamber of Deputies, in closing their session, express their great satisfaction at the heroic and fruitful triumphs of the allied armies in defence of human rights; render their tribute of admiration to the great leaders of democracy, President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill; offer sincere congratulations on the return to health of the courageous British Prime Minister; and in expressing these grateful resolutions offer their prayers to the Almighty that the final victory of the forces of good over the powers of evil may in the coming year illumine with Christian fellowship the peace and happiness of the world.
They also resolve that a copy of the present motion shall be sent to the House of Commons of the United Kingdom and to the House of Representatives of the United States of America in evidence of the popular sentiment in Porn and as a fresh loyal manifestation of their democratic declarations and of their cherished desires.'
In sending to Your Excellency a copy of the foregoing resolution, we reiterate our fervent wishes for the triumph of the United Nations as crystallising the victory of right and justice over oppression and force and as restoring in the world the guarantees necessary to humanity within the noble current of civilised life.
We offer, etc.,
(Signed) Carlos Sayán Alvaraz,
Deputy, President.
(Signed) Juan José Teves Lazo.
Isaias Méndez Munoz,
Deputies, Secretaries.

Perhaps the House will allow me to send a suitable reply?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table,—Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

London County Council (Money) Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Mining Subsidence

Mr. Daggar: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is now in a position to state the results of the consultations between his Department and the other Departments concerned regarding the damage due to subsidence; and when he expects to be in a position to deal with this problem.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): Considerable progress is being made in the consultations with other Departments interested in housing, planning and the location of industry. Such consultations are designed to provide information with a view to the avoidance in future of damage from mining subsidence, but the problem is a complicated one which can hardly be dealt with within the limits of Question and Answer.

Mr. Daggar: Will the Minister be able to give me any satisfaction if I give notice to raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment?

Major Lloyd George: I think the hon. Member raised it on the Adjournment in the last week or so.

Mr. Daggar: Is the Minister aware that his Parliamentary Secretary exceeded the time and that I got no reply to my question?

New Entrants (Training)

Mr. Foster: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will state the number of youths who have-received full training, or are in course of training, under the scheme of the Minister of Labour for


recruitment of mineworkers; and the number absorbed by the industry into full employment.

Major Lloyd George: At 25th April, the number of new entrants for the coal-mining industry who had completed their preliminary training at Ministry of Labour Training Centres was about 9,300 and the number still under training was about 4,200. On completion of this training, the men are directed to employment in the industry, and in that sense are fully employed, though many of them are still of course in various stages of further training, as required by the Coalmining (Training and Medical Examination) Order, 1944.

Mr. Foster: While thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask for a more specific answer to the latter part of the Question? How many of these boys are in full employment below ground, and are on the colliery books?

Major Lloyd George: I could not give the hon. Member that information now, but will let him have it as soon as possible.

Neecessitous undertakings (Production)

Mr. Foster: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps are taken by his regional controllers to inquire into the causes of the low output at those collieries which are necessitous undertakings; and whether he is satisfied that the best use is being made of the manpower available to increase output.

Major Lloyd George: Whenever an undertaking finds it necessary to seek help under the Necessitous Undertakings Scheme, full inquiries are made, both by my Regional Controller's Production Staff and by professional accountants, on behalf of the Necessitous Undertakings Committee, into the causes of difficulty. The resulting technical and financial reports are considered at a meeting of the Necessitous Undertakings Committee, which is attended by the Regional Controller, or his representative.
The production position of necessitous undertakings is kept under close review by my Regional Controllers and when necessary technical and financial supervisors are appointed. The Group Production Directors now being appointed in the Regions will pay particular attention to these undertakings.

As regards the last part of the Question, every effort is made to increase output, and the general efficiency of the industry, by making the best use of the man-power available.

Coal-Face Workers

Mr. Foster: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the average percentage of coal-face workers in relation to the total number of workers employed at those collieries which have become necessitous undertakings in the respective districts, separately, as compared with those collieries which are not necessitous undertakings.

Major Lloyd George: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:


Average percentage of coal-face workers in relation to the total number of workers employed at those collieries which have become necessitous undertakings in the respective districts as compared with those collieries which are not necessitous undertakings


District.
Coal face workers as a percentage of total number of workers employed.



Necessitous Under-takings.
Other Under-takings.



Per cent.
Per cent.


Northumberland
40·17
36·28


Cumberland
35·89
36·07


Durham
37·76
42·02


South Yorkshire
35·92
38·82


West Yorkshire
42·82
40·87


North Derbyshire
39·87
39·29


Nottinghamshire
44·76
41·41


South Derbyshire
38·38
36·71


Lanes. &amp; Cheshire
39·28
37·49


North Wales
35·45
30·89


North Staffordshire
36·19
33·93


South Staffs. &amp; Worcs.
33·08
32·32


Warwickshire
36·07
36·34


South Wales &amp; MOD.
40·61
42·66


Forest of Dean
43·16
39·99


Fife &amp; Clackmannan
47·94
48·37


Lothians
36·03
37·29


Lanarkshire
45·37
46·89


Ayr and Dumfries
34·53
42·56

Concentration

Mr. Raikes: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power in which districts and from and to which pits or seams the 11,50o men and 150 machines have been


transferred in pursuance of the policy of concentration.

Major Lloyd George: Information is not readily available about individual pits or seams, but I will circulate in the OFFICIAL. REPORT a statement giving by Regions the number of men and machines transferred.

Following is the statement:


Concentration



No. of men and machines transferred to more productive pits and seams.


Region
Men.
Machines.


Scotland
1,209
—


Northern A
307
4


B
730
1


N. Western
965
27


N. Eastern
5.132
119


N. Midland
799
—


Midlands
1,287
—


Wales
1,200
—


Total
11,629
151

Oral Answers to Questions — SEVERN BARRAGE SCHEME

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if the investigation into the Severn Estuary Barrage Scheme is being treated as a matter of urgency; when he expects to receive the Report; will he ask the committee to consider further schemes or appoint another committee to give consideration to methods and the best sites for utilising the power of the tides; and if he is satisfied that we are making all possible preparations for hydro-electric power production as soon as possible after the war.

Major Lloyd George: The investigation into the Severn Barrage Scheme is being treated as a matter of urgency, and I hope to receive a report within the next two or three months. Until I have been able to consider the report, I do not think I should be justified in initiating investigations into tidal power schemes elsewhere. As regards non-tidal hydroelectric schemes, the main field of potential development is in the North of Scotland. In this connection I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to the hon. Member for Inverness and the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) on 25th April.

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL RATIONING (RACE-MEETING, WINDSOR)

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that at the recent race meeting at Windsor, on Easter Monday, between 2,000 and 3,000 taxicabs conveyed passengers to the racecourse; and what action he proposes to take to prevent a recurrence of such wasteful expenditure of petrol.

Major Lloyd George: I am informed that a check made on all taxicabs in Windsor, and at the race meeting there on Eastern Monday, showed that 659 such cabs were present. The drivers were not contravening the Control of Motor Fuel Order, and I am not satisfied that an amendment of the Order designed to meet the views of my hon. Friend is practicable.

Mr. Mathers: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman recognise that this applies equally to the desirability of being more fair in the allocation of petrol to private hire services?

Major Lloyd George: Private hire cars were also there on the same day.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Non-Utility Shoes

Mr. Keeling: asked the President of the Board of Trade why the reduction made by Emergency Powers (Defence) Consumer Rationing—General Licence (S.R. & O., No. 317, of 1944) in the coupon value of certain non-utility shoes applies to unregistered traders and not to registered traders.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): The coupon rate for low priced non-utility shoes was reduced from 27th November last until 31st March to help traders to clear stocks. The distributors, who are unregistered, need a longer period to dispose of their stocks than the manufacturers, who are registered. The former have, therefore, been allowed to sell these shoes at the reduced rate for a further three months.

Mr. Keeling: May I ask the Minister whether, in exercising his power of delegated legislation, he would explain such matters in the Order?

Mr. Dalton: I always endeavour to combine clarity with brevity, and an


explanation is attached wherever there is any difficulty, but no difficulties have arisen in the trade about this.

Mr. Keeling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some boots, classed as ulti-utility, are themselves non-utility?

Mr. Dalton: I am endeavouring, by exercising persuasion, through Orders and other means, to discourage the production of cheap footwear. The difficulty is, however, that we have to deal with a good deal of second-rate material, which has to be worked in somewhere, but we are endeavouring to get rid of the lower qualities.

Stockings

Captain Plugge: asked the President of the Board of Trade when the No. 773 stockings are expected to be in normal supply.

Mr. Dalton: This number was not introduced until last November, but I am glad to say that supplies are now about equal to the demand.

Great Britain and United States (Discussions)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade what negotiations are proceeding between this country and the U.S.A. on the subject of a commercial agreement; whether the Dominion countries are associated with the discussions; and if he will give an assurance that no agreement will debar this country from concluding separate agreements with the Dominion countries.

Mr. Dalton: No such negotiations between the United States and United Kingdom Governments are proceeding at present.

Mr. Shinwell: Are there no experts' discussions proceeding?

Mr. Dalton: Not at present, but, in any case, a sharp distinction has to be drawn between discussions between experts and negotiations, in the proper sense, between representatives of Governments.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask whether any discussions between experts are contemplated?

Mr. Dalton: That is another question. My hon. Friend is fishing assiduously. I have given him a straight answer, and

there was a full Debate on these matters only the week before last, when the hon. Member himself made a speech of great distinction.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not necessary to fish assiduously in order to protect the interests of this country; and will the Minister not understand that I am not putting this question in a hostile spirit at all but merely because I am anxious to ascertain whether any expert discussions are either pending or in contemplation?

Mr. Dalton: I am anxious to give the hon. Member a perfectly clear and straightforward answer. There have been —and this has been stated in the House before by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by me—over the past two years, a number of discussions between officials, both as between the British and the United States Governments, and between the United Kingdom and Dominion Governments, and I have no doubt that further such discussions will take place in future, but no commitments or conclusions have yet been reached. The family council of the Empire is now meeting, and we had a full Debate the week before last, when a commitment was given that, until the family council had concluded their discussions, and agreement had been reached, no further developments would take place in this; matter.

Sir Herbert Williams: If these experts publish a Report, comparable to that issued after the meeting of the currency experts, will the Minister give an assurance that it will be couched in language which ordinary people can understand?

Mr. Graham, White: May we assume that these discussions, when they take place, will be under the direction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Dalton: Oh, yes, Sir. Officials do not run wild.

Furnacemen (Clothing Coupons)

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the possibility of issuing extra clothing coupons for furnacemen in factories where work necessarily involves extra wear and tear.

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. Furnacemen, like many other workers, are entitled to ten coupons in addition to their basic ration.

Sir A. Knox: Are there any other means by which the men engaged in heavy industry, the steel industry in general, can claim extra coupons above the ten?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, there are three tiers in the matter—first of all, the basic ration, then the industrial supplement to the great majority of industrial workers, and then in addition, there are coupon pools, which are issued to certain special categories of heavy workers. These are distributed in each works by the works committees, and the iron and steel industry is one of the industries so included.

Mr. Thorne: Who distributes these extra coupons? Is it the employer, the foreman or the manager of the works?

Mr. Dalton: It is the works committee, constituted under an agreement between employers and workers in each works.

Hairdressers (Industrial Coupons)

Mr. Harry Thorneycroft: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the interests of public health and hygiene, he is now prepared to concede the industrial -10 coupons to hairdressers so as to enable them to purchase saloon clothing.

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. I regret that, in view of the very limited supplies available, I cannot at present see my way to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that his advisers are correctly informed with reference to conditions; and will he, on the next occasion he visits his hairdresser, which I know is not very frequent, undergo the operation without the protection of a gown and then probably he will appreciate the necessity of protective clothing?

Mr. Dalton: My hair is just as thick round the neck as that of my hon. Friend, but we are, of course, very anxious to make what arrangements we can for the benefit of hairdressers. They get utility overalls for three coupons but the plain fact is that, in this and many other directions, supplies are very short indeed and will so continue until the war has moved forward. The Services have to come first and the civilians second.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

The following Question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. ELLIS SMITH:

17. "To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been directed to the revelations in the case of Thompson, His Majesty's Inspector of Taxes, versus Magnesium Elektron, Limited, and the restrictions contained in an agreement made between Magnesium Elektron, Limited, and I.C.I., providing that the former company should not sell caustic soda and other by-products; whether this agreement has remained in force during the war; how it has affected our total war effort; and how is the company disposing of the caustic soda produced.

Mr. Ellis Smith: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why Question No. 17, which stands in my name, has not been called?

Mr. Speaker: It has been crossed out on my Paper and I presumed that it was not to be asked.

Mr. Dalton: This Question is to be answered by the Minister of Aircraft Production.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Why?

Mr. Dalton: Because it relates to the Department of that Minister, who took over the Question by arrangement.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I do not want to create a difficulty but there is some misunderstanding here. This matter is the direct responsibility, as far as the agreement is concerned, of the Board of Trade, and the question of administration is one for the Minister of Aircraft Production. I am asking a question about the law report, to which I would like an answer.

Mr. Speaker: I have no control over which Minister should answer a Question.

Earl Winterton: Is it not in accordance with the custom of this House that, where a Question is transferred in this way, the hon. Member concerned should be so advised?

Mr. Dalton: I regret if there has been any slip up on this matter. The Question is addressed to me on the Paper but, as very often happens, as you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, following discussions between my officials and officials at the Ministry of Aircraft Production, it was agreed by both of us that the matter fell within the sphere of the Ministry of Aircraft Production and not within mine. I had assumed, therefore, that either the Minister of Aircraft Production or the Parliamentary Secretary would be here to answer it. That was the understanding between us. I am very sorry that some misunderstanding may have occurred but that is their affair and not mine.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I must claim your protection here, Mr. Speaker. The Question refers to a matter which was dealt with before the Ministry of Aircraft Production was set up at all. This is an agreement that has been in existence for some time and, therefore, seeing that this is a pre-war matter and that this restrictive agreement has been in operation during the war, am I not entitled to an answer, and is it not the responsibility of the Board of Trade?

Mr. Speaker: I regret I cannot order a Question to be answered by a particular Ministry.

Mr. Pethiek-Lawrence: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. We quite recognise that a Question can be transferred, but this Question is on the Order Paper to be put to the President of the Board of Trade. In these circumstances is it not in accordance with the usual practice for you to call upon the hon. Member to ask his Question so that when he asks his Question any explanation can be given by the Government? Surely, the Question can be asked at this point of time.

Mr. Speaker: We were told that this Question was not being asked, and it was crossed off my Paper. As a matter of fact this Question has not been asked, but if there is any answer the Question can be answered when the Minister arrives.

Mr. Stokes: May we have an explanation why there is no Minister present to answer the Question if it has been transferred by arrangement?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know.

Mr. Ellis Smith: May I defer this Question until next week?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Mechanical Transport Corps (Africa Star)

Mr. Astor: asked the Secretary of State for War whether members of the M.T.C. are eligible for the Africa Star on the same conditions as other women's services.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): The M.T.C. is a civil body and its members are not eligible for the

Star unless they joined one of the Women's Auxiliary Services.

Mr. Astor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this unit went to the Middle East at the request of the Commander-in-Chief, that they were fed, clothed and looked after by the Army and served in the desert for months, and that some were actually given the Africa Star by General Montgomery in the field?

Sir J. Grigg: I would rather like to have the information which the hon. Member has just given to the House, because in some respects it is contrary to the information that I have. If he will give it to me I shall be glad to deal with it.

Sir H. Williams: Having regard to the fact that the M.T.C. has been used by every Government Department, if it is a civil organisation and is infringing the Act passed before the war, why do not the Government either recognise it definitely or prosecute it?

Mr. Turton: Do not E.N.S.A. get this decoration?

Sir J. Grigg: Some E.N.S.A. people do; those who are under the direct control of the Army.

Mr. Astor: Is it not ridiculous to give it to E.N.S.A., who come out for a comparatively short time, and though doing very valuable work, it involves nothing like the danger and importance of these ambulance drivers?

Sir J. Grigg: I understand—and this is where the account of the hon. Member and that sent to me seem not to be in accord—that most of these drivers were advised to, and, in fact, did, join one or other of the Women's Services.

Mr. Astor: Will not my right hon. Friend give it to those who did not join the Women's Services but remained on in their unit and did most valuable work?

Wounded Personnel (Acting Rank)

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Secretary of State for War what proportion of soldiers on being wounded on service are regraded or reduced in rank; and will he take steps to end this reduction?

Sir J. Grigg: I regret that the proportion cannot be ascertained without considerable research. A soldier who is


wounded in action while holding paid acting rank retains such rank for three months or until posted for duty in a lower rank, whichever is the earlier. I am considering the introduction of a new rule whereby the period of retention of acting rank will count towards its conversion to war substantive rank, which in many cases will result in its being retained for the remainder of the soldier's war service.

Benevolent Fund

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for War why the Army, unlike the R.N. and the R.A.F., has no benevolent fund.

Sir J. Grigg: The Army, unlike the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, is built up from regiments and corps, each of which has its own charitable fund. I have under consideration however the question of creating a central Army Benevolent Fund to receive donations for the Army generally and to apply them to the assistance of existing funds.

Mr. Edwards: When the Minister comes to consider this Fund, will he be quite sure in his own mind that it will not cause the wildest inflation?

Mr. Gallacher: Why should there be a benevolent fund for the Army?

Brig.-General Clifton Brown: Is it not true that almost all regiments and corps in the Army have benevolent associations of their own recognised by the War Office and helped by them?

Sir J. Grigg: That is certainly what my answer was intended to convey.

Foreign Service Allowances

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the foreign service allowances payable to officers and other ranks in the various theatres of war.

Sir J. Grigg: I am circulating particulars of the special allowance payable to troops in the Mediterranean theatre. The troops on the Burma front, which is the other active theatre of war, receive Indian rates of pay. These include an element to cover the additional expenses they necessarily incur while in that theatre.

Miss Ward: Could my right hon. Friend indicate in the OFFICIAL REPORT what are the special allowances in Burma and how the scales of payment are weighted?

Sir J. Grigg: My hon. Friend will have to apply to the India Office for that information, because these troops get Indian rates of pay.

Following are the particulars:


Mediterranean Allowance for Stations within the Mediterranean Area.


Rank.
Perday.



s.
d.


Officer
4
6


Warrant Officer I
1
4


Warrant Officer II and III

10


Staff Sergeant

7


Sergeant

6


Rank and file

4

Personnel who would be entitled to married rates of Colonial Allowance if serving at stations other than in the Mediterranean area receive in addition amounts in respect of such entitlement varying with the particular station in the Mediterranean area.

Non-Combatant Corps (Harvesting)

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will permit members of the non-combatant corps to volunteer as harvest workers.

Sir J. Grigg: The members of this Corps are fully engaged on essential duties and it is unlikely that it will be possible to permit them to volunteer for harvesting.

Mr. Bartlett: Is it not a fact that whereas some of them have been allowed to volunteer, for example, for paratroop ambulance work, and so on, a great many of them are doing perfectly useless jobs such s road making, which could not possibly compare with the requirements of agriculture at the time of the harvest?

Sir J. Grigg: I would be very surprised to hear that any of them were, at this particular juncture, employed on perfectly useless jobs.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Could the right hon. Gentleman give some discretion to commanding officers in country districts, if a few men are available at busy times, to allow them to work on farms?

Sir J. Grigg: I do not necessarily debar this altogether; but I said that it is, I am afraid, unlikely that it will be possible.

War Office, Civilian Staffs (Official Secrets Act)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the arrangements provided in the confidential circular issued by the War Office Director of Establishments, relating to the staggering of hours in Central London the disclosure of the contents of which is being made the basis of disciplinary action against the officer concerned who acted in his trade union capacity, were disclosed freely to staff representatives in other Government departments similarly affected so that the staff could be notified and have also been referred to in the Press; and whether he will assure the House that no disciplinary action will be taken against the officer mentioned.

Sir J. Grigg: The documents concerned in this case were in the first place a circular letter from the Director of Establishments to Directors which included a reference to a decision of the Army Council on a proposal which was not adopted, and in the second a personal letter in reply from one of the Directors. The terms of this reply were made the basis of an attack by the Civil Service Clerical Association on the action of this Director.
But as I told the hon. Member on 25th April, the question is not what are the contents of the documents disclosed. The question is whether a State employee has the right to extract information from, or to make a copy documents to which he has had access in the course of his official duties, and communicate it without authority to his Association. That is the right which I understand the Civil Service Clerical Association have claimed, and which, of course, is quite inadmissible. As far as the present case is concerned I understand that the Association admit to having received information about the contents of the two letters to which I have referred.
No charge has yet been made against any individual in this particular case. But if on investigation a breach of the regulations in this matter is brought home to any individual, all relevant factors will be considered in deciding on the action to be taken.

Mr. Brown: Could not the Secretary of State for War adjust this case and prevent any similar case from arising in future, by giving instructions that all directions

touching staff interests and conditions in the War Office shall be communicated in a form which does not render the individual liable to a charge under the Official Secrets Act if he passes the information on to his union?

Sir J. Grigg: That seems to me to take it for granted that the War Office, or Government Departments generally, should admit the right of branch secretaries, or members of staff associations, to communicate documents to their associations. That is a right which neither I nor any other head of a Department can admit.

Mr. Brown: Would not the Minister overcome this difficulty by seeing that a copy of such instructions is communicated to the headquarters of the union?

Sir J. Grigggg: It is quite impossible to give any such categorical assurance. The original letter from the Director of Establishments, it is perfectly true, referred, among other things, to certain procedure which had been discussed previously with the Staff Association.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Are we to understand from that reply that gross breaches of trust, even if committed by trade unions, will be punished in future?

Mr. Brown: On a point of Order. May I give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment?

Middle East Forces (Political Discussion)

Mr. Leslie: asked the Secretary of State for War if he has now received a report on the suppression, of the Forces Parliament in Cairo; and if, in considering the report, he will bear in mind that the South African troops have had this sort of Parliament for some time and assisted our Forces in establishing the one which has now been suppressed.

Sir J. Grigg: I have received a short telegraphic report, but it does not add anything material to what has already appeared in the Press. I understand that a written report is on the way.

Mr. Leslie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British officers have encouraged our soldiers in the setting up of this body, and does he not think it a good thing a man should be instructed in Parliamentary procedure and business?

Sir J. Grigg: I understand that there has been no question of stopping the parliament. Its venue has been changed from a public place to barracks, and its title has also been changed, but to the best of my belief these are the only changes which have been made.

Dependants' Allowances

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for War if the recently announced increases in allowances to dependants of Army personnel were decided upon before the decision to depart from the present policy of the stabilisation of the cost of living was arrived at.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I have been asked to reply. As I made quite clear in the course of the Budget Debate the policy of stabilisation is not being departed from and, therefore, the hon. Member's Question does not strictly arise, but I may say that he would be right in drawing the obvious inference from the fact that the increases in allowances were promulgated after, and not before, my Budget statement.

Mr. Lawson: Was this made known to the Members of this House who had discussions with the Government on this matter, when making their recommendations for increases?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not see that that question arises.

Mr. Tinker: Before any change is made in the stabilisation of prices, will the Chancellor come to the House and let us know what he intends to do?

Sir J. Anderson: Anything that it may be decided to do will be announced.

Home Guard (Explosion, Easingthorpe)

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for War if he can give any information in connection with the explosion on a farm at Eastingthorpe, Essex; and how many Home Guards were killed and injured.

Sir J. Grigg: I deeply regret that six members of the Home Guard were killed and three were injured as a result of an explosion, the cause of which is as yet unknown. A court of inquiry will be convened as soon as possible to carry out a full investigation.

Retired Officers (Re-employment)

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) what are the terms as regards pay and retired pay under which retired officers are re-employed in the Army;
(2) what are the terms as regards promotion under which retired officers are re-employed in the Army;
(3) to what extent is the retired pay of re-employed officers affected, after they have been again relegated to unemployment; by the length of time for which they have been re-employed or by any promotion granted during such re-employment.

Sir J. Grigg: Generally speaking, such an officer receives the same pay as other officers of the rank in which he is reemployed plus an addition of 25 per cent., but for further details I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to a reply I gave my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut.-Colonel Boles) on 21st March. Such an officer is eligible for promotion to acting, temporary and war substantive rank under the normal wartime code and any promotion he may attain is reflected in the pay he receives and in the amount of the addition to pay. When he ceases to be re-employed he draws the retired pay which he drew before he was re-employed.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Does not my right hon. Friend think that this arrangement represents a substantial saving to the Government, and ought not officers to receive all the retired pay which they earned, in addition to the pay for the work they are doing?

Sir J. Grigg: I have tried to explain to my hon. and gallant Friend that in addition to the pay for the work they are doing they get an extra 25 per cent.

Temporary Personnel (Gratuities)

Mr. Kendall: asked the Secretary of State for War whether be can now state the intention of His Majesty's Government with regard to awarding gratuities to officers and men serving temporarily in His Majesty's forces in accordance with previous practice; and, in particular, if payment will be made immediately to those officers and men who have been invalided or properly discharged from active service.

Sir J. Grigg: In view of the answer given by the Prime Minister to my noble Friend the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) on 4th April I am not at present able to make any statement on these matters.

Mr. Reakes: Is the Minister aware that during the 1914–]18 campaign gratuities were paid forthwith to officers and to men who were invalided out or otherwise properly discharged?

Sir J. Grigg: I think that is the case. That is one of the factors I have definitely in mind.

Mr. Reakes: Then what is the reason for the delay? If it was right in the last war, surely it is right in this war.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIAN PRISONERS OF WAR

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for War to what extent the arrangements for separating Austrian from German prisoners of war have now been carried out; and whether they are kept in separate prison camps.

Sir J. Grigg: The separation of prisoners of war of Austrian nationality from German prisoners of war held by the Government of the United Kingdom has now been carried out as far as possible. Their segregation is absolute, that is they have no contact at all with one another, but they are not necessarily in separate camps.

Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this applies in all parts of the world wherever they may be?

Sir J. Grigg: I would rather like to have notice of that question, because my answer applies to prisoners held by the Government of the United Kingdom in this country. If my hon. Friend wants to know what is done elsewhere, perhaps he will give me an opportunity of considering it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (SERVICE REGISTER)

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will devote an early issue of the bulletin of the A.B.C.A. to the procedure of voting by proxy, the absent voters register and the rights of Service personnel under the Representation of the People Act.

Sir Richard Acland: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) what date has been fixed by which men serving in the Army must complete Army Form B. 2626 in order to be put on the absent voters' list or to be enabled to vote by proxy;
(2) why approximately four months were allowed to elapse between the passage of the Parliament Elections and Meetings Act and the issue of A.C.I. 483 and Army Form B. 2626.

Sir J. Grigg: As hon. Members are, no doubt, aware, the machinery set up by the Army, and indeed by the three Services for enabling officers and other ranks to be placed on the new Parliamentary Register is intended to carry out the provisions of the Parliament (Elections and Meeting) Act, 1943. The terms of the Act seem to me to be inconsistent with compulsory registration. They are certainly inconsistent with automatic registration. The soldier must under the Act be registered in a particular constituency and short of a declaration by the man himself there is no means of identifying that constituency. Moreover the Act enables a proxy to be appointed by the voter and that appointment can only be made by the man himself. Unless a man appoints a proxy, he may very well be unable to record his vote owing to being abroad at the time of an election.
But though compulsory or automatic registration is impossible the Army is giving effective opportunity to soldiers to exercise their rights and indeed is doing a good deal to persuade them of the importance of doing so. An Army Council Instruction, a Notice Board Information and a pamphlet explaining what is involved and what must be done was issued on 1st April to all units. In addition, a short article entitled "Your Vote and how to cast it," as a suitable subject for a talk, was included in issue No. 69 of the A.B.C.A. production "War" of which a copy has been placed in the Library of this House. Two talks have also been given by the B.B.C. on this subject. And I will certainly consider what further measures are possible and desirable.
In answer to the hon. Baronet's suggestion that the War Office was slow in getting out its instructions I would point out that although the Act was passed on


11th November the Electoral Registration Regulations which prescribe the form of the declaration to be made by members of the Forces were not approved by this House until 16th December. It was then necessary to print some millions of copies of the form of declaration, to produce, in agreement with the Home Office and the other Service Departments, a pamphlet of instructions and to send supplies of the form and the pamphlet to commands overseas. These preparations had to be completed before the Army Council Instruction referred to could be complied with and the date of its issue was arranged accordingly. The answer to the hon. Baronet's other Question is that no such date has been fixed. Soldiers can complete the form at any time but they have been advised to do this as soon as possible.

Mr. H. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that the A.B.C.A. pamphlet dealing with this question, which he said was issued some time ago, has actually been brought to the notice of all ranks, in all units?

Sir J. Grigg: The A.B.C.A. pamphlet to which my hon. Friend refers was issued on 29th April, not some time ago. I have not the slightest doubt that by that means, and by the other means I have described, and by any other means we may be able to invent in the future, this matter will be brought reasonably to the notice of all ranks.

Sir R. Acland: In view of the very full and friendly reply given by my right hon. Friend, could I ask whether he or one of his officials, especially responsible for this matter, would meet one or two of us who are interested in it for a short time this week?

Sir J. Grigg: I will certainly consider that.

Mr. W. J. Brown: In view of the fact that registration of the civilian population on the new register will be automatic, why cannot it be automatic in the case of the soldier?

Sir J. Grigg: Because this House has determined otherwise.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the Bill was presented to this House, an assurance was given that the heads of Departments

had promised co-operation in ensuring full registration of the personnel of the Army? Is not the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman now makes one of the Army contracting in instead of being registered automatically whether they vote by proxy or not?

Sir J. Grigg: Not at all. The Bill certainly provides for voluntary registration. An obligation cannot be placed upon commanding officers to cause men to register; it would be contrary to the terms of the Act. We are, however, perfectly ready to listen to any additional suggestions for helping the present process. What the Army is trying to do is to see that every man is given effective opportunity to exercise his rights and that all the necessary procedure is brought effectively to his notice.

Mr. Pritt: Would the right hon. Gentleman also consider inducing commanding officers, where practicable, to devote a lecture to this specific purpose? Is he aware that some of the officers are doing that already, and will he encourage them further?

Sir J. Grigg: I thought I had made it clear that an A.B.C.A. number had been issued and that a suggestion had been made that it should be used as a basis for a talk.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War for what reason the airmail service to Lisbon has been suspended; whether letters can now be sent by sea to Lisbon and thence by non-Allied planes to prisoner of war camps in Germany, or alternatively, can they be sent via Sweden.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Robert Grimston): I have been asked to reply. The air-mail service to Lisbon has been suspended as a security measure for operational reasons. Letters can still be sent to prisoners of war in Germany post free by ordinary post, and such letters are due to be carried from Lisbon to Germany by the German air service. The same consideration would apply to letters if sent viâ Sweden, and I fear therefore that my right hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion would be of no advantage.

Sir A. Knox: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that with the exception of the garrison at Gibraltar, prisoners of war are the only people who are, by this Order, deprived of the benefit of air service? Will this service be restored as soon as possible, as prisoners of war are in special need of it?

Mr. Grimston: We have every sympathy with the hardship caused, but I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend to realise that this restriction has been imposed only for security reasons, and will be lifted as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Sheriff Clerk, Lanarkshire

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the age of the present Sheriff Clerk of Lanarkshire.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I am informed that the Sheriff Clerk of Lanarkshire is 87 years of age.

Mr. Brown: While paying tribute to this magnificent record, may I ask the Minister whether he does not think that in the general interest he ought to impose a time limit of 100?

Mr. Johnston: When the Question was put on the Order Paper I caused particular inquiries to be made and I am informed that this gentleman, who has had a long and distinguished record, attends his office every day and that the work is being efficiently performed.

Mr. McGovern: Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that when this officer ceases employment, he will not be directed into national service?

Mr. McKinlay: Was this sheriff informed, before he accepted office, that the job was not likely to be permanent?

Commander Locker-Lampson: Is there not present in this House to-day an hon. Member of that age who shows by his vigour that he is capable of efficient work? [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] The hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne).

Mr. Mender: Is it not the case that at about that age Mr. Gladstone formed a very admirable Liberal Government?

Mr. McGovern: We see the results of it.

Garden Crops (Protective Netting)

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland is he is aware that green crops planted in gardens of householders in Dumbartonshire, in response to the appeal to dig for victory, are being destroyed by ground vermin; that the Scottish Office refuse to entertain any application for supplies of protective netting; and will he now advise such householders of alternative means of safeguarding their crops.

Mr. Johnston: I have consulted my Noble Friend the Minister of Works, who is responsible for the issue of permits to householders for the purchase of protective fencing for their gardens. The supply of suitable fencing presents great difficulty under present conditions. I am informed, however, that for the time being permits to purchase wire-netting will be issued where necessary and so far as supplies permit. Householders may also purchase small quantities of second-hand wire-netting without permits.

Mr. McKinlay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Ministry of Works removed the protection and that officers of his own Department, last week, refused to recommend any protective netting with which to protect these vegetables?

Mr. Johnston: If my hon. Friend can give me any particulars about officers of my own Department I will have inquiries made.

Venereal Diseases (Report)

Mr. T. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Report on Venereal Diseases by his Medical Advisory Committee will be available; and whether he has any statement to make.

Mr. Johnston: The Report is published to-day and copies are now available in the Vote Office. I am sending local authorities copies of the Report. I propose to discuss it with the local authority associations and with other interested bodies as soon as possible.

Barlinnie Prison (Staff)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the shortage of staff at His Majesty's prison, Barlinnie, Glasgow; and whether he will take steps to secure that the number of qualified officers is increased as early as possible.

Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir. And I am making every effort, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to recruit suitable temporary staff to fill the vacancies.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman not introduce the system that operates at Wakefield and organise prisoners in groups, with a prisoner in charge of each group, and so to a great extent relieve the necessity of an officer?

Proposed Viaduct, Lewis

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can make any statement of his intentions regarding the proposed viaduct between Bernera and the main Island of Lewis; and whether the Department of Agriculture in Scotland intends to offer financial assistance for its construction.

Mr. Johnston: No approach regarding this proposal has been made to the Department of Agriculture by the County Council of Ross and Cromarty as the statutory highway authority since, as my hon. Friend was informed on 3rd October, 1939, the county council decided to defer further action meantime. The Department will, of course, be prepared to give full consideration to any application. by the county council should they wish to take up the matter again as a post-war project.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DECORATIONS AND MEDALS

Mr. Turton: asked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to announce any changes that are proposed to be made in the conditions governing the issue of the Africa Star and the 1939–43 Star, or any decision to issue a ribbon for another Star.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Important changes are certainly going to be made as the result of the Debate in this House a little while back. But my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister must ask for more time before His Majesty's Government are able to announce hard and fast decisions.

Mr. Turton: Bearing in mind future operations will the right hon. Gentleman express to the Prime Minister the desire of the country that a settlement of the grievance should be expedited before new campaigns are launched?

Mr. Attlee: I have no doubt my right hon. Friend's supplementary question will be noticed by the Prime Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions — SERVICE PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Miss Ward: asked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the White Paper on Service Pay and Allowances still leaves anomalies uncorrected, if he will appoint a Select Committee to examine the whole position and make recommendations.

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir. If the hon. Lady is referring to the large number of minor questions which were raised in the course of the recent discussions on Service pay and allowances, these are being examined as expeditiously as possible by the Departments concerned, and any changes which are found to be necessary or desirable will be made.

Miss Ward: In view of the fact that this was an informal committee, has a complete note been taken of all the points raised?

Mr. Attlee: Yes.

Mr. Bellenger: As this informal committee did not deal with innumerable anomalies which arise in the Service and other Departments, how is it possible for Parliament to exercise any control or give any assistance to Service Departments unless we have some machinery for doing it?

Mr. Attlee: The machinery is there. If my hon. Friend will send in any particular instance to the Service Department, it will be looked into.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very strong feeling amongst the mothers of serving soldiers and that they are now beginning to organise? Are we to wait until there are demonstrations all over the country?

Mr. Kendall: asked the Prime Minister what steps have been taken to fulfil the promise made in the White Paper on Service Pay and Allowances in respect of women in the Forces; and when the increases are brought into operation will they be made retrospective to the first pay day nearest to 1st May 1944.

Mr. Attlee: So far as pay is concerned, increases have already been authorised


corresponding to those for the men, but at the usual two-thirds rate. In the case of widows who are eligible, by reason of their service with the Forces for children's allowances, certain details are now being worked out. The answer to the second part of the hon. Member's Question is Yes, Sir.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to reconsider the rates of allowances for children of men serving in the Forces set out in the Command Paper 3521, with a view to the allowance for each child being increased to 15s.

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir.

Sir A. Southby: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, and for the concessions regarding pay and allowances which have been generally appreciated, may I, as a member of conference which discussed the matter with the Government, ask him whether he is not aware that the higher figure for children's allowances was asked for because it is impossible under existing conditions adequately to feed, clothe and maintain a child on 12s. 6d.? Will he therefore ask the Prime Minister whether he would be prepared to receive further representations on this point?

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir. These matters have been fully considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. MACKENZIE KING (ADDRESS TO MEMBERS OF BOTH HOUSES)

Mr. Edgar Granville: asked the Prime Minister if it is intended to broadcast the coming talk to both Houses of Parliament by Mr. Mackenzie King; and if it will be relayed when the maximum number of the public are able to listen.

Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir. The British Broadcasting Corporation will make appropriate arrangements on this important occasion to suit the convenience of the greatest possible number of listeners at home and overseas.

Mr. Granville: In order to make the family circle complete, will the right hon. Gentleman consider inviting the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand to participate in these proceedings, or a similar function, in order that people in this country may hear their voices?

Mr. Attlee: I answered a question to that effect last week.

Mr. Shinwell: Was my right hon. Friend's answer in the affirmative, that facilities would be provided to enable Mr. Fraser to address both Houses of Parliament?

Mr. Attlee: I stated last week that that matter is being considered. We hope that arrangements may be made.

Captain Plugge: Will the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements for the new American broadcast service to carry the programme?

Earl Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us attach the greatest importance to Mr. Fraser and Mr. Curtin being given an opportunity to address both Houses of Parliament, for reasons which are too delicate to mention?

Mr. Attlee: Certainly, I am quite aware of it. I answered last week that the matter was under consideration and that we hope that an opportunity will be provided.

Mr. Stokes: To avoid misunderstanding in the country, should it not be made plain that this is an address to Members of both Houses and not to both Houses of Parliament?

Oral Answers to Questions — PENICILLIN (DISTRIBUTION).

Major Lyons: asked the Lord President of the Council what distribution of penicillin has been made by the appropriate committee of the Medical Research Council; upon what date or dates and to what aim were the quantities directed, respectively; was any particular test or condition excluded owing to shortage of supply; which of the recipient centres has published any Report of its work in this connection; and has it yet been considered by him.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Attlee): As the answer is rather long, I propose, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Major Lyons: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that every step is being taken to speed up the production of this


valuable commodity, to keep it out of monopolistic hands and to make it generally available?

Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir.

Following is the answer:

The Penicillin Clinical Trials Committee appointed by the Medical Research Council is responsible for the distribution only of the part of the penicillin supply which is allocated for research in this country, the remaining and larger part is going to the Forces overseas. The total quantity distributed by the Committee up to the end of March, 1944, was about five hundred million units, of which about four hundred and twenty million units were divided between the hospitals in Oxford, London and Edinburgh chosen as the main centres for clinical trial. The Committee has also provided smaller supplies for specific clinical purposes to fourteen other centres in this country; and sixteen further projects for particular forms of study were approved at a recent meeting. The aim of these clinical trials is to treat cases under controlled conditions in order to determine the value of penicillin in different diseases and the best methods of its use. No proposals for any promising investigation has been rejected owing to shortage of supply. In some of the institutions work has not been in progress for long enough to justify publication of results, but several reports have been issued and others are in prospect. As I stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member on 19th April, a full account of the work at one of the main centres was published in the "British Medical Journal" on 15th April. Such reports are of a technical nature and are more for the consideration of the medical profession than of Ministers.

Oral Answers to Questions — DURHAM COUNTY (GEOLOGICAL SURVEY)

Mr. Sexton: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will make available to Members the geological Report of the survey recently conducted in Teesdale and Weardale in the county of Durham.

Mr. Attlee: This Report is now in course of preparation. It is intended to publish it when it is completed. In the meantime I shall be glad to arrange for the hon. Member to be provided with information, which may be in the possession of the geological survey, on any particular point.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Taxes and Rates (Incidence)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set up a Royal Commission to inquire into the incidence of national taxation and local rates, so that the system of raising money operates fairly as between taxpayers and ratepayers and as between the ratepayers in different areas of local government.

Sir J. Anderson: It would hardly be possible to discuss changes in the incidence of national and local taxation, or of local taxation as between different areas, without embarking upon the whole question of the future financial relations between central and local government, on which, as I informed my hon. Friend on 7th March, I do not think a separate inquiry can usefully be undertaken at the present time. I can, however, assure him that the questions to which he refers are kept under constant review in framing plans for the development of the services with which both central and local government are concerned.

Sir W. Smithers: Does my right hon. Friend realise that Acts of Parliament put a very heavy burden on ratepayers and that in some areas, especially poorer ones, the burden will become unbearable?

Estate Duty

Sir Robert Tasker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that at present estate duties are charged twice on the same estate through various departments where the ownership has not changed; and if he will take steps to alter this.

Sir J. Anderson: I understand that the matter to which my hon. Friend refers is one regarding which he has written to me. Inquiries are being made and I hope to communicate with him at an early date.

Sir R. Tasker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no acknowledgment was received from the Treasury?

Sir J. Anderson: I am very sorry if that is the case. The letter ought certainly to have been acknowledged.

Scotland and Northern Ireland (Bank Note Issues)

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Treasury receive the profits accruing from the note


issues of the Scottish and Northern Irish banks, which have increased since September 1939 by 31.7 million pounds and 5.8 million pounds, respectively.

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Can my right hon. Friend give any estimates of these profits and say why these banks should not be put on the same footing as the Bank of England?

Sir J. Anderson: The figures given in the Question do not relate to profits but to issues on which there may be no profits, because the issues have to be backed by Bank of England notes or coin. As regards the treatment of banks, that is governed by Statute law.

Property Tax (Empty Houses)

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the numbers of empty houses recorded for the years 1935 to 1939, inclusive, by the Inland Revenue from which Schedule A tax was not collected.

Sir J. Anderson: I regret that this information is not available as statistics of void properties are not collected.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of the Ministry of Health to the fact that at the last census the number of empty houses was very considerable, at a time when new houses were being built? Will he bear these empty properties in mind when making any estimate of new houses to be built?

Sir J. Anderson: That is always kept in view.

Loans (Conversion)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of Treasury deposit receipts held by the banks have been converted Ito National War Bonds by 12th February, 1944; and what is the total of conversions to all types of Government loans.

Sir J. Anderson: The amounts of subscriptions covered by repayments of Treasury deposit receipts before maturity up to the 12th February, 1944, were £603,000,000 for National War Bonds and £1,346,000,000 for all types of Government loans.

Mr. Stokes: Does that answer mean that, of the new money created, the banks have been allowed to transfer £1,000,000,000 from long-dated loans at practically no cost to themselves, and that it is costing the community roughly £,30,000,000 a year?

Sir J. Anderson: That seems reminiscent of previous questions to which I have given replies.

Mr. Stokes: May I be told whether my reading of the answer is correct, because the House would like to know?

Sir J. Anderson: No, it is a much longer story than that.

Mr. A. Edwards: Has the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that it is impossible to get the benefit of these funds at a lower rate of interest than is at present contemplated?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir.

Interest-Free Loans

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will cause to be included in the weekly campaign circular of the National Savings Committee an appropriate invitation to members of the public to lend their money to the Government free of all interest; and why such an appeal has not previously been included in the campaign circular.

Sir J. Anderson: The answer to the first part of the Question is "No, Sir." In reply to the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his Question on 6th April last.

Mr. Stokes: In view of the fact that it is obvious to every Member that loans free of interest are of great advantage to the Government and the community, will the Chancellor explain why people are not encouraged in these circulars to lend their money free of interest?

Sir J. Anderson: My hon. Friend's assumption is not correct. The Treasury is always glad to have loans free of interest, but to institute a campaign directed to securing as much money as possible in the form of loans free of interest, which, in fact, would be repayable at call, instead of loans for long terms, is a very different story.

Mr. Stokes: It may be a different story, but does not the Chancellor think that it


would be a great advantage to the community and "bust" the money racket once and for all?

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir.

Income Tax (Pay-as-you-earn Scheme)

Mr. John Wilmot: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will explain by what means any future changes in the rate of income tax or in the allowances will be carried into effect immediately under the Pay-as-you-earn scheme.

Sir J. Anderson: I appreciate my hon. Friend's interest in this important matter, but I think we had better wait and see.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends, after having full experience of the Pay-as-you-earn system, to alter the date of the annual deciding the code number for each income taxpayer, so that any budgetary changes in Income Tax may be brought into operation as soon as practicable after the passing of the Finance Bill.

Sir J. Anderson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Kenning-ton (Mr. Wilmot).

Mr. Mathers: Does it not appear to the Chancellor obvious that, unless he refrains from putting into operation the changes that are brought about in the Budget, until the next ordinary period for changing the code number, great difficulties will arise?

Sir J. Anderson: quite recognise that the matter is complicated. It is really much too complicated to be dealt with effectively by question and answer, but when changes in the rate or conditions of tax are made, appropriate provisions will have to be made for carrying the changes through into the Pay-as-you-earn system.

Mr. Wilmot: Would the right hon. Gentleman take advantage of some suitable opportunity to explain this matter to the House and consider whether it would be desirable to change the date of the Budget statement to a date before the end of the financial year in order to make any adjustment of the Income Tax rate applicable to the Pay-as-you-earn scheme?

Sir J. Anderson: I will keep that in mind.

Motor Vehicle Licence Duty

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will lighten the 'burden of motor-car taxation for people living in remote country areas who still keep their motor-cars licensed for weekly or fortnightly shopping journeys to their nearest town.

Sir J. Anderson: I fear it would be quite impracticable to make the amount of the motor vehicle licence duty dependent on the frequency with which the vehicle is used.

Captain Plugge: Can these cars be registered as hackney carriages at a reduced rate?

Sir J. Anderson: That is another question.

Incomes (Lower Ranges)

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer 'why, in Cmd. 652o, he did not give numbers of private incomes under £250 per annum.

Sir J. Anderson: It has not been found practicable so far to make an estimate of the number of incomes below £250 per annum because the available information is incomplete and 'because of the risk of duplication where such incomes are made up of receipts from different sources.

Mr. Lawson: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether these figures are in course of preparation and whether he can give them in the future?

Sir J. Anderson: I wish that it were possible, but part of the statistical information on which we rely for this purpose is collected by the Board of Inland Revenue, and as they do not get the incomes which are below the taxable limit, that source of information naturally fails.

Easter Offerings (Taxation)

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of money collected by the Treasury from Easter offerings in 1939 and in 1943.

Sir J. Anderson: I regret this information is not available.

Brigadier-General Clifton. Brown: Will it be available by the time of the Budget?

Sir J. Anderson: I doubt it.

Entertainments Duty

Captain Plugge: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how much is contributed to the provisional estimate of revenue in 1943–44 from Entertainments Duty by the chief different forms of entertainment.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): As the answer involves a table of figures I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Captain Plugge: Will my right hon. Friend consider relief of taxation for the live theatre, where the artists perform every day in person?

Mr. Assheton: That is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Following is the Table:


Approximate receipts of entertainments duty from different kinds of entertainments during the financial year 1943–44:


Receipts under the full scale of duty:
£000


Cinemas
37,277


Football
387


Cricket
3


Horse Racing
166


Other Racing
801


Other Entertainments
241


Receipts under the reduced scale of duty:



Theatres and Music Halls
3,889


Other Entertainments
109


Unclassified Receipts
500


Total
43,373

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN (AGREEMENT)

Mr. Speaker: I am calling on the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss) to ask the Foreign Secretary a Private Notice question. I would point out that I am doing this deliberately although it is technically out of Order, because the statement of the Foreign Secretary is, I understand, one which is being made simultaneously here and in America. The hon. Member has given, notice to withdraw a similar Question on the same subject which he had down for to-morrow, and having put down this Question he has rather "stymied himself," because technically a Member can not effectively withdraw a Question on the Order Paper until the end of that day and so the Question on to-day's Paper should really rule out a Private Notice Question. Although the Question is

technically out of Order, I think that the House will understand the circumstances.

Mr. G. Strauss: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a statement about the recent negotiations with the Spanish Government in regard to outstanding differences.

The Secretary of State of Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir. For some time past His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, and the United States Government, have been in negotiation with the Spanish Government in regard to a number of matters in which the attitude of the Spanish Government in the past seemed to them contrary to the declared policy of Spanish neutrality. The matters under discussion were: the presence and activities of the German consul-general at Tangier and of German agents throughout Spanish controlled and Spanish territory; the continued presence of certain Spanish units on the Eastern Front; the detention of Italian ships in Spanish ports; and the level of exports of Spanish wolfram to Germany. These negotiations have now been brought to a satisfactory conclusion. The main features of the agreement reached are as follow:

(i) I informed the House on 22nd September last that the Spanish Government had been asked to put an end to the unneutral activities of the German Consul-General at Tangier. The Spanish Government have undertaken to close the Consulate-General forthwith and to arrange for the departure of the Consul-General and all his staff. They have already expelled from Tangier, the Spanish Zone of Morocco and the Gibraltar area certain German agents who had been working against British interests and they are in the process of expelling from the mainland, Tangier and Spanish Morocco other such agents, to whom His Majesty's Government have drawn their attention.
(ii) The Spanish Government have given an assurance that the remaining Spanish units have been withdrawn from the Eastern Front and that all survivors of the Blue Division and Blue Air Squadron have already returned to Spain, with the exception of a few wounded and small administrative detachment supervising the withdrawal.


(iii) Six of the Italian merchant ships detained in Spanish ports at the time of the Italian armistice have already been released. The remainder will now be released, with the exception of the two whose ownership is in dispute and which will be chartered to the Spanish Government, subject to arbitration as to eventual ownership. The Spanish Government have agreed to the proposal of His Majesty's Government that the disposal of the Italian warships which sought refuge in Spanish ports after the Armistice shall be settled by arbitration.
(iv) The following arrangements have also been made in regard to wolfram. Export permits granted to Germany during the current year will be drastically reduced. Twenty tons may be exported to Germany in each of the months of May and June. Thereafter for the rest of the year—if, as a practical matter, they can be made—exports will not exceed 40 tons a month. It should be added that throughout the whole period of about three months, when the details of this agreement were under discussion, the Spanish Government maintained a complete embargo on all wolfram exports to Germany.
As a result of the settlement reached with the Spanish Government on all the above points, each item of which marks a substantial gain for the United Nations and represents definite and concrete evidence of the intention of the Spanish Government to maintain neutrality, His Majesty's Government and the United States Government consider themselves justified in accepting once again the strain on Allied resources represented by the export of oil products to Spain. Permission will accordingly now be given for the renewal of petroleum loadings by Spanish tankers in the Caribbean, and for the lifting from United States ports of minor quantities of packaged petroleum products in accordance with the programme in operation before the suspension of such loadings.
His Majesty's Government regard the outcome of all these negotiations as satisfactory, on account of the military and economic benefits accruing therefrom to the United Nations, and because it marks a notable step towards the fulfilment of that strict neutrality which the Spanish Government have declared to be their policy.

Mr. Strauss: What percentage of the former exports of wolfram is represented by those 20 tons a month for the next two months?

Mr. Eden: They represent, broadly speaking, taking last year and this year, a reduction which will be a very considerable one. I should say that the 20 tons—I hope that this will not be taken as the actual figure—represent perhaps a fifth, and perhaps less, of the previous export of wolfram.

Mr. A. Bevan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while the country will regard the outcome of these negotiations as satisfactory in itself, nevertheless the belatedness of the negotiations, and the very unlikely bearing they are going to have upon the outcome of the war, will not mitigate our feelings of hostility towards the Government of General Franco?

Mr. Eden: That is the highest tribute which I have ever had from the hon. Gentleman. He admits that we have done right belatedly. I never would expect more from him. This is an arrangement which will redound to our advantage and which we can broadly regard as satisfactory.

Mr. Bevan: I did not speak about the belatedness of the right hon. Gentleman but of General Franco's belatedness.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in any case, feel assured of the satisfaction of the House in general with the agreement which has been come to, and the hope that he will be able to pursue a similarly successful policy with other Powers with which he is in negotiation?

Mr. Mander: Is it intended that the arbitration proceedings referred to shall take place forthwith, or after the war?

Mr. Eden: The arbitration concerns the warships only. I am not in a position to say how the details are to be carried out.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: How is the right hon. Gentleman to satisfy himself that the minimum quantities are not being exceeded, and that the rule as to the quantities is not circumvented?

Mr. Eden: The hon. and learned Member can rest assured that that point has been very much in our minds.

Mr. R. Taylor: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the oil products that are now to go to Spain will not leave Spain and go to Germany?

Mr. Eden: What is happening, of course, is that we are resuming the same amounts of oil products that we previously sent. Those amounts are not large. They are only just enough for the bare needs of Spanish economy, and they will be fetched in Spanish tankers.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the future state of Tangier in any way affected?

Mr. Eden: Only in this sense, that the German Consul-General, for whose presence we have never admitted there was any legal right whatever, has now been removed.

Mr. G. Nicholson: Is the future of Tangier as an international zone affected?

Mr. Eden: Slightly purified.

Mr. Tinker: Is not the outcome of these negotiations the best indication that the Allies are winning the war?

Sir William Davison: I am not quite clear on one point. My right hon. Friend said that 20 tons were to go in May and June and then he referred to a figure of 40 tons. Does that mean that after May and June 40 tons of wolfram are to be exported from Spain to Germany? It seems a large amount.

Mr. Eden: It is not a large amount compared with what has been going. What I said was, 20 tons for each of the months of May and June, and that thereafter, for the rest of the year, if as a practical matter, they can be made, exports will not exceed 40 tons a month.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Will my right hon. Friend bring this friendly and satisfactory arrangement to the notice of the Swedish Government?

Mr. Stokes: If the right hon. Gentleman says that 20 tons amount to 20 per cent. of the supplies, will not 40 tons amount to 4o per cent., in which case the reduction is not really very great?

Mr. Eden: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been kind enough to confirm my hon. Friend's calculation. I will only add that if my hon. Friend studies the document he will find it is obvious that

we thought it desirable to make the best possible arrangement for the immediate future.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING COMPANY (SHARES)

Mr. Ellis Smith: I desire to ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House, in order to direct attention to a matter of extreme and urgent public importance. I know that at this stage I am not allowed to argue the matter, and can state only the bare facts, but I want to place them before you for your consideration. The matter is as follows: Shares valued at 6s. 8d. in a certain shipping company in this country are now being gambled with and speculation is taking place, and offers have been made for the 6s. 8d. shares to the extent of—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is now stating the whole of his case.

Mr. Ellis Smith: With due respect, Sir, I shall be as brief as possible, but in order that you can give consideration to the seriousness and urgency of the matter it is necessary that I should state it within as narrow limits as possible, giving the bare facts.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has written to me, giving the bare facts. Now he is only entitled to ask for my answer.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I wrote to you, Sir, because I thought it was elementary countesy, in view of the serious issues that I wish to raise. Therefore, what I want to ask now is whether you have given consideration to the statement which I sent to you, and whether you will bear in mind that if it is right to take action against one section of the community, then consideration should be given to these facts by the Government.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has written to me, and he is now asking permission to move the Adjournment of the House upon a matter of urgent public importance. He wishes to draw attention to the fact that certain shares of Messrs. Lamport and Holt have increased in value on the Stock Exchange, and therefore that this speculation should be stopped. As a matter of fact, it is out of Order to raise the matter at all, because the Stock Exchange is not represented by any Minister, and no Minister can answer.


In point of fact, one cannot put down Questions on the Paper about the proceedings on the Stock Exchange because no Minister can answer them. Therefore, I am afraid that the hon. Member's case must fall.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I would like to ask further advice from you, Sir. In view of the fact that this country is involved in total war and that the whole of our resources, so far as the ordinary people are concerned, have been put into the pool, and in view of the effect of this speculation on our war effort, may I ask what steps can be taken to bring pressure to bear on the Government to deal with such speculation and gambling?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot advise the hon. Member about that, except to suggest that he might put a Motion on the Paper. Otherwise, I do not know how the matter could be discussed, since no Minister can answer a Question on the subject.

WAYS AND MEANS

REPORT [25th April]

Resolutions reported:

BEER (EXCISE)

1. "That, as from the twenty-sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-four, the rates of the duty of excise charged in respect of beer under section one of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1939, shall be increased by adding—

(a) two shillings and threepence to the sums of six pounds eighteen shillings and fourpence halfpenny specified in Part I of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1943; and
(b) one penny to the sum of five shillings and three halfpence so specified;
and, in the case of beer in respect of which it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that duty at the rates increased as aforesaid has been paid, the excise drawback allowed under the said section one shall be allowed at rates increased by addin—

(i) two shillings and threepence to the sums of six pounds eighteen shillings and sixpence halfpenny specified in Part II of the said First Schedule; and
(ii) one penny to the sum of five shillings and three halfpence so specified.
And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

BEER (CUSTOMS)

2. "That, as from the twenty-sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-four, the rates of the duty of customs charged in respect of beer under section one of the Finance (No. 2 Act, 1939, shall be increased by adding—

(a) two shillings and threepence to the sums of six pounds eighteen shillings and ninepence halfpenny specified in Part III of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1943, and the sums of seven pounds eighteen shillings and ninepence halfpenny specified in Part IV of that Schedule; and
(b) one penny to the sums of five shillings and three halfpence specified in those Parts of that Schedule;
and, in the case of beer in respect of which it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that duty at the rates increased as aforesaid has been paid, the customs drawback allowed under the said section one shall be allowed at rates increased by adding—

(i) two shillings and threepence to the sums of six pounds eighteen shillings and sixpence halfpenny specified in Part V of

the said First Schedule and the sums of seven pounds eighteen shillings and sixpence halfpenny specified in Part VI of that Schedule; and
(ii) one penny to the sums of five shillings and three halfpence specified in those Parts of that Schedule.
And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

PURCHASE TAX.

3. "That the extent and incidence of purchase tax be varied so as to give effect, as from such date as may be provided by any Act of the present Session relating to finance, to provisions for charging the tax on certain importations of chargeable goods and varying the transactions that are to be treated as chargeable purchases for the purposes of the tax, increasing the scope of registration, excepting persons from the effect of registration in certain cases, and requiring in certain circumstances security for payment of the tax."

INCOME TAX: CHARGE OF TAX.

4. "That,—

(a) income tax for the year 1944–45 shall be charged at the standard rate of ten shillings in the pound, and, in the case of an individual whose total income exceeds one thousand five hundred pounds, at such higher rates in respect of the excess over one thousand five hundred pounds as Parliament may hereafter determine;
(b) subject to the provisions of the Income Tax (Employments) Act, 1943, and the Income Tax (Offices and Employments) Act, 1944, all such enactments as had effect with respect to the income tax charged for the year 1943–44, other than such enactments as by their terms relate only to tax for that year, shall have effect with respect to the income tax charged for the year 1944–45.
And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

HIGHER RATES OF INCOME TAX FOR 1943–44.

5. "That income tax for the year 1943–44 shall be charged at rates exceeding the standard rate in the case of individuals whose total incomes exceed two thousand pounds, and those rates shall be rates in the pound which respectively exceed the standard rate for that year by the amounts specified in the second column of the Table in subsection (1) of section seven of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940.

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

RELIEFS OF PERSONS RESIDENT ABROAD.

6. "That, for the purposes of the proviso to subsection (1) of section twenty-four of the Finance Act, 1920, the relief provided for by


section twenty-seven of that Act shall be left out of the account in computing—

(a) the amount of the income tax payable by an individual; and
(b) the amount which would be payable by him by way of income tax if the tax were chargeable on his total income from ail sources, including income which is not subject to income tax charged in the United Kingdom.
And it is hereby declared that it is expedient is the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

LUMP SUM PAYMENTS FOR COPYRIGHTS.

7. "That the author of a literary, musical, dramatic or artistic work who has been engaged on the making thereof for a period of more than twelve months shall be entitled to require that part of any lump sum payment that he receives for the whole or any part of the copyright in that work shall be treated as having become receivable in an earlier year or earlier years."

EXCESS PROFITS TAX.

8. "That the extent and incidence of excess profits tax (for past and future chargeable accounting periods) shall be varied so as to give effect to amendments of section thirty-five of the Finance Act, 1941 (which relates to the avoidance of tax)."

TRADING WITH THE ENEMY.

9. "That retrospective provision shall be made as respects income tax and death duties where persons, income or property are or is affected by the law relating to trading with the enemy."

ESTATE DUTY.

10. "That such of the enactments relating to estate duty as provide for charging duty in respect of the assets of a company to which property has been transferred by a person, or at his request or with his consent or acquiescence, shall, in the case of such a person dying after the commencement of any Act of the present Session. relating to finance, be amended as respects—

(a) the computation of the extent to which the assets of the company are to be deemed to pass on his death;
(b) the determination of the net income of the company;
(c) the prevention of duplication of the charge of duty; and
(d) the rate of interest that is to be applied in making certain computations."

First to Third Resolutions agreed to.

Fourth Resolution read a Second time.

INCOME TAX: CHARGE OF TAX.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Dr. Russell Thomas: I want to put forward a plea on behalf

of the small rentier class and other people of very limited incomes, people with about £200 a year. Under former Finance Acts these people used to get an allowance on unearned income of £100 a year on Income Tax assessments but that has since been reduced to £8o a year, and has remained at that figure for some time now. Those for whom I am appealing are a fairly varied class. First of all, there is the person who has worked hard all his life and who has been thrifty and of value to his country; he has asked no charity from anyone and he has saved for his old age and that of his wife. Perhaps he has put some of his money into property which has been destroyed in the blitz, but there may be a small mortgage on it which still has to be paid. Such people are the salt of the earth. Another class are those who have been engaged in affairs and business throughout the Empire and in that way have been of great benefit to their fellow countrymen. Very often these people by the nature of their lives were not able to save a great deal of money, but towards the end of their days they may have just enough to give them about £200 a year or a little more. There are many, like scientific workers, who have devoted their lives to their work and have done great service without thinking too much of their income, but nevertheless, have managed possibly to save just a little. These are the classes of people who are affected by what I am proposing. I have made appeals on their behalf before. I made one during the proceedings on the Finance Act, 1942, and during the Budget proposals of 1943, and I am doing it again to-day, because the reply I got from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury last year was that these people benefited by the action the Government had taken in regard to the stabilisation of prices and therefore nothing further could be done. The Financial Secretary stated that in the House and—I think I may repeat this—he confirmed it to me privately afterwards.
That was the reason given to me then by the Financial Secretary, but I think the Chancellor has made it clear to us, in submitting his present Budget, that prices are going to rise and that we can no longer depend on them being stabilised at 30 points above the pre-war level and that possibly during this year they will


rise to 35 points. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), who is always so fair and just in these matters, has already spoken of this, and I admit that the Chancellor was very reasonable in his reply and said that he hoped to be able to put the brake on, so that prices do not rise too rapidly. However, many hon. Members opposite are getting alarmed, and there has already been objections from trade unions although I fail to see with rising wages how this could be avoided. The people for whom I am pleading will now suffer both ways. They have had their allowance in respect of Income Tax dropped from £100 to £80, which is a serious matter when their income is only £200 a year and they are now to feel the effect of rising prices. I would repeat, if I may, that the stabilisation of prices was the only reason given by the Financial Secretary for not taking action, and I would point out that that reason no longer exists.
These people have been in this position now for three or four years, and many of them are getting to the end of their tether, and I feel that if prices do rise they will have to seek financial assistance from the State, and I suggest that the assistance which the State will have to give them will to some extent offset what the State is gaining by taxing them. I am rather surprised that this House has not made more appeals in support of the case I am now presenting. Many hon. Members have put forward the case of certain pensioners, and they have had their position improved in several ways—indeed I have supported and agreed with it—but nothing has been done for the people for whom I am pleading, who are the salt of the earth. Their background and their breeding prevent them from pleading their case, they bite their lips, but we ought not to take advantage of their reticence.
I would like to give an example of the type of person I mean. I put forward this case very dubiously, because I fear that I may get some private castigation for mentioning it. Perhaps the House will think me mawkish or sentimental, but I am not either but merely sympathetic. I am aware of an old lady, getting on in years and living in a small cottage, who is infirm and whose neighbour, in a similar financial condition to herself,

though not so infirm, comes in to help her to do her housework, fetch, carry, chop her wood and so on. That old lady—and this is perhaps where I shall be liable to the castigation of my friends, but I shall risk it to bring my point home—is the grand-daughter of a former Prime Minister of England. That is the type of person for whom I am pleading. I am sure that the Chancellor, now that he is no longer able to put forward the stabilisation of prices as a justification, will examine this plea carefully, and I trust that he will belie the words written by John Ruskin many years ago on a matter not unlike this, when he said:
England of the iron heart, you have much to answer for.

Mr. Tinker (Leigh): I wish to bring forward a point to which the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be directed. While on a journey I bought a Sunday newspaper and read in it a statement that thousands of people were dodging the Pay-as-you-earn tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech gave great credit to all concerned in bringing that system into operation and when one sees a statement such as I have mentioned one wonders what is happening. In the "Sunday Dispatch" of 3oth April the following statement is made under the heading "Thousands are dodging pay as you earn":
Thousands of private employers have not yet begun to deduct P.A.Y.E. income tax from their employees. These are not heads of firms, but people who employ private secretaries, part-time clerical workers, gardeners, cooks and domestic helps. They are bound under law to provide the Inspector of Taxes with a full list of the names, addresses, and salaries of those they employ. But at present no action has been taken against those who have neglected to comply with the order. An Income Tax official told me yesterday: Hundreds of these people do not realise their obligation. We therefore ask everyone who is an employer to come forward now. If they apply at once to their local Inspector of Taxes no difficulty will arise, but we advise them that it will be extremely unwise to leave notification until later.' Scores of employers of part-time gardeners, cooks, etc., do not realise that P.A.Y.E. cards have to be obtained for these. In the case of domestic servants and others the employer has to collect and remit the tax to the collector monthly.'
If that statement is true it will have a bad effect upon those who are willingly paying what they are called upon to pay, and I ask the Chancellor to look into this point and see if there is anything in these allegations. If it is not true some correc-


tion ought to go out, and if it is true then close attention ought to be given to this matter, so that we may be assured that everyone who is liable to pay does pay.
Another point I want to raise concerns the Chancellor's statement indicating that the cost of living would rise. I hope that before the Chancellor does anything to change the present level at which prices have been stabilised he will give full information to the House on what it is that he proposes. It will be very unwise at the present stage to raise prices in any way without full information being given. Throughout the country people have regarded the Budget statement as a good one, but there is a feeling of bitterness over the announcement that prices may have to be allowed to rise. I know that when he made his speech the Chancellor was feeling his way and giving a warning against wages being raised too much, but I hope that after that warning and the reception it met with from Members of the House he will not attempt anything until full information has been given to the House.

Sir Robert Tasker: In reference to the first point which was raised by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) I would like to suggest that one way of dealing with it is the way adopted by me. I at once wrote to His Majesty's Inspector of Taxes to know what procedure should be adopted. But my object in rising was to support my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Dr. R. Thomas) and to call attention to the parlous condition of people whose incomes are small. There seems to be no uniformity about the manner in which taxation is demanded and collected on some of these incomes of about £200 a year. If the £200 is derived from investments and annuities tax at l0s. is deducted at source, then the incomes from the various investments and annuities are added together. If they exceed £8o a year, 6s. 6d. is charged on the excess of go wrongly I think, and if the amount exceeds £165 a year the balance is taxed at l0s. in the £ Surely, that cannot be right. Further on properly it works out like this, the charge which the Budget says should be at l0s. in the £ actually works out at 11s. 8d. in the £. In another case, it will work out partly at 11s. 8d. and partly at 13s. 3d., and, in another

case, you will find that the first £80 is tax free, the next £165 is charged at 6s. 6d., and above £165 at 15s. I am sorry. The 6s. 6d. should be halved—13s. 3d. Thus you get three different taxes on one small income. In point of fact, you can get four different rates—los., 11s. 8d., 13s. 3d., and 15s. [HON.MEMBERS: "NO, no."] I am perfectly willing to send a case to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it would be too late once this Resolution has been passed, for a whole year will have gone. What I am really appealing for is the reinstatement of the £100 a year free of tax and the raising of the amount before charging 6s. 6d. in the £.
Let me compare the case quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton with the case of the people who are getting public assistance. In the case of the person getting £200 a year, it is admitted that that is subject to Income Tax, but the person who is receiving more than £4 a week from the public assistance contributes nothing at all. Of the two cases, surely, if sympathetic consideration is to be given, it should be given to the person who has never been a charge on public funds, who has worked all his life and, perhaps, accumulated a little capital and enjoys an income of roughly £4 a week. Compare that person with the individual who, perhaps through no fault of his own or perhaps because of his improvidence, or whatever the case may be, is receiving public assistance, and I think it will be agreed that greater sympathy should be extended to the person who has never been a public charge. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether, having regard to the cost of living and other circumstances, some relief ought not to be given, and also to consider going back to, the figure of £100 a year free of tax.

Major Woolley: I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Dr. Thomas) in his plea. I can quite imagine that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary might very properly say that the Chancellor has no intention of allowing the cost of living to get out of hand. That may well be his reply to my hon. Friend. But may I suggest that all these little extras that are falling on the back of the comparatively small taxpayer do, when added together, make a consider-


able burden? Let us not forget that, in addition to the comparatively small rise in the official cost of living, there is another rise in the cost of living which is outside the official figures of the Ministry of Labour and which makes a very considerable demand upon the purse of the person of comparatively small means.
May I mention one other type of person? The person I have in mind is the widow who only gets an allowance of £80, the same as the spinster who may have no domestic responsibilities. During the past week I have had several representations made to me on behalf of the widow who has household responsibilities and who is not granted any differentiation by comparison with the spinster who has no children or other domestic responsibilities. I feel that such are very hard cases. I sympathise with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that he has to draw a line of demarcation somewhere, but I think that if we bring these cases to his notice perhaps, like little drops of water, they may make some impression. I heartily support the case which has been put forward by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: The hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. Thomas) has indeed done well to raise this point in the way he has done, and I welcome it, but for an entirely different reason from any given up to the present. I have no friends who are either daughters, grand-daughters or relatives of ex-Prime Ministers, but I am very conversant with many thousands of working-class girls who, at the moment, are being referred to so frequently, both in this House and in the Press, as earning £4, £5, £6 or £7 a week, and who are often maligned or rebuked, as it were, by some of those journalists who do not understand what is happening in industrial areas. They call them "good-time girls." I wish to say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the experience of some of us in working-class districts in recent months, and the knowledge we are gaining, cause us to review some of the figures published in recent weeks, of the earnings of many of these girls, the allowances that he makes to them for Income Tax purposes, and the actual small amount of money they have left at the end of the week. I refer, in particular, to those girls who are directed into employment away from their own homes.
May I put the position as I see it? It is fairly true to say that for something like three years good wages were being earned in the factories. There was plenty of overtime, and probably large sums of money were paid in Royal Ordnance factories on the piece-work basis. Consequently, the wage packet was fairly well sized and, I should say, the employees were able to do quite a lot with the money they received. But many of the former kinds of production have closed down. Many thousands of girls are being directed from their own towns and their own homesteads into neighbouring towns or, it may be, 20, 3o, 5o or even 100 miles away from home. For a time after they have been directed to employment away from home, they receive a little consideration from the Minister of Labour for billeting purposes, but when they settle down—or "settle in" as the Ministry describes it, I believe—they find that they have no allowances whatever. Instead of living in their own homes they are billeted with someone else at, probably, 3os. or 35s. a week. Consequently, instead of having £3 or £4 a week with which to have a good time, they have only 3s. or 4s., or, sometimes, only a few coppers left at the end of the week. Under the Pay-as-you-earn scheme, they are very conscious of this. I notice the Chancellor of the Exchequer smiling, but let me bring to his notice the hard facts which I know so well.
Girls working in small munition factories in my division have been earning fairly good money, but they have been working very hard and working overtime whenever that was demanded. Now they are being diverted from home and directed to laundry work. I sent three cases recently to the Ministry of Labour. They do not mind being directed into laundries; in fact, they rather welcome the opportunity to serve, in whatever capacity the Ministry demands of them. But they find that when they go into laundries some 20 or 3o miles away they are working at trade board rates. Let the House understand that trade board rates are not what can be called magnificent. Trade board rates represent the two-foot rule to measure wages below which no sweater can go. It is not a trade union rate; it is a legal. minimum. Many of these girls from my division are being paid according to that legal minimum. They are receiving


round about 5os., 52s., or 53S. a week. I put it to any Member here to-day, "Can your daughters, if sent away from home, exist on 53s. a week to-day after paying the just demands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Could they have a good time on 53s. a week to-day?" That is the challenge.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that we cannot treat these girls any differently. I would like the Chancellor to realise that they are feeling this position very strongly. Girls sent from my division into Luton, in Bedfordshire, have told me their weekly Budget. After working for 47 or 48 hours, and paying for board and lodging and their normal expenses, they have less than 2s. 6d. a week to spend after Pay-as-you-earn deductions. That is very serious. The position has to be re-examined. We are given figures and statistics and we believe that in the war factories—the soldiers in the Army think the same—everybody is earning good money. It is not true. Owing to the changes in industry and the different directions received by these young girls, which they comply with uncomplainingly, they find that they cannot live on the wages being offered, although they do their best. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must be aware that he has in no way made allowance for these girls who are transferred from their homesteads to be billeted with somebody else perhaps so miles away.
I am pleading that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should make a review of the whole incidence of direction, in relation to the war factories, especially where wages are low. He can, if he likes, review the trade board rates. If he does, he will find that in recent months the Minister of Labour has directed in Lancashire and Yorkshire anything up to 150,000 girls. These girls are by no means able to eke out a normal existence, because of the low rates of pay, no matter how many hours of work they try to put in. Therefore, whilst I support the plea of the hon. Member for Southampton, I appeal in the name of these girls for more considerate treatment. One of the great fallacies of to-day is the idea, generally accepted both in the Press in this House, that everybody in industry is earning big money, the girls in particular. The hon. Lady the Member for the Sutton Division

of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) has said on more than one occasion that these girls spend their time drinking and have far too much money. Quite frankly I say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, in the main, our girls are now being punished very severely as a result of the depletion in their wage packets, and the Pay-as-you-earn system is bringing it home to them. I would like the Chancellor to review these allowances as generously as he can.

Sir Waldron Smithers: I want to address the House for only a very few minutes to support the plea made by the hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. Thomas) on behalf of the people with small fixed incomes and old age pensions. If the danger of inflation is not realised, the difficulties will spread from the small income people and the old age pensioners to the whole country—to all the citizens, to all the taxpayers. May I give the House, quite shortly, a few figures. Since the war, the currency note issue has more than doubled. Bank deposits have increased by 75 per cent. There are £1,300,000,000 in Treasury deposit receipts, and the £600,000,000 of notes, All that means so much forced borrowing and is purely inflationary.

Mr. Speaker: I must remind the hon. Member that we are discussing Income Tax.

Sir W. Smithers: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I was trying to show the reason why these small people are put in this position. All this means that although the cost of living is held, down by a stabilisation fund of £200,000,000, it does come very hard on the Income Tax liabilities of the small people referred to by the hon. Member below the Gangway. What this inflationary process does is to force any surplus money there may be into the uncontrolled markets, and the prices in the uncontrolled markets have gone up some four or five times. That creates an impossible situation for these small people. That is why we are pleading for some relief in Income Tax to enable them to buy things that are really necesary, although they may happen to be uncontrolled. I ask the Chancellor to consider again this case both of these small people with fixed incomes and of the old age pensioners. In one word I would say that there is a


splendid article on this matter in to-day's "Daily Sketch" by Candidus which I would recommend to the attention of all hon. Members.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): Several hon. Members have referred to the difficulty of people with small incomes. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Dr. Thomas) referred in particular to people with small fixed incomes derived from investments. He reminded the House of an answer given last year by the Financial Secretary which relied on the fact that the cost of living was being stabilised. I will refer to that point before I sit down. Other hon. Members have spoken of the hardship which present rates of Income Tax involve in the case of another class of taxpayer, the wage-earner. I am afraid this is a matter on which we can all make common cause. Undoubtedly, the present high rates of Income Tax hit heavily at people of all classes, and one must have particularly in mind the position of people in the lower ranges of income. That is a matter, I suggest, that can only be dealt with in practice on very broad lines, as indeed the Income Tax code seeks, to deal with it. The Income Tax code looks at income and draws a distinction between earned and unearned income. There are then various allowances, the wife's allowance, the housekeeper's allowance, children's allowance, other dependants' allowances, and so on. Then there is a portion of income which is free from tax. Then there is a further slab of income higher up, which is subject to tax at a modified rate, and then you come to tax at the full rate. Higher in the scale you have ascending levels of what used to be called Super-tax.
I think it would be extremely difficult to devise a system on the whole more equitable, granted the necessity for raising revenue, and the fact that the revenue from Income Tax can only be raised to the extent to which it must be raised under present conditions, by making a very wide sweep and going down to a fairly low level. Unfortunately, all experience shows that it is quite impossible, in the levying and collection of Income Tax, to take account of all sorts of variations in the economic condition of the individual taxpayer, which one would wish to take into account if it

were possible, because they result in the tax falling with varying severity on various individuals. Experience shows that an attempt to do anything of that kind involves the taxing authority in such complications that the whole thing would undoubtedly break down.
The hon. Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker) drew a distinction between the position of an Income Tax payer on a low rate of income, and a person receiving assistance from the public assistance authority or from the Assistance Board. I assure the House that when proposals are made to me, as they constantly are, for increased grants in this direction or in that, I always try to keep in my mind that very contrast between the recipient of benefits from the State, and the position of those who have to provide the wherewithal. I think it is a balance which one must constantly keep in view. I have said before in this House that we should not long succeed in maintaining a system if we did in fact reach such a position which appeared to be collecting taxation in order to provide benefits for people who are already better off than those who are paying the taxes. But of course the Assistance Board only makes its grants on the basis of need after a careful investigation and after taking everything into account. That, I think the House agrees, is the only way in practice that that can be done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) raised two points, and the first I will deal with is the point which was also raised by the hon. Member for Southampton, about the level of the cost of living. I was not quite sure, listening to the hon. Member for Leigh, whether I had succeeded, if he was present when I wound up the Debate last Thursday, in making quite clear to his mind what exactly is my position in this matter. I am anxious, I am desperately anxious, to maintain the price stabilisation policy, and nothing I have said I intend to do is designed to depart in any way from that policy, nor will any increase in the cost of living that may come about be due to anything done by me. What happens is this: There are changes which result in some class of goods or services going up in price. I have nothing to do with that. I have no hand in that at all. If these goods and services come within the range of the cost-of-living


index the automatic effect is to put up the cost-of-living index.
It has been the policy of the Government, and it is still the policy of the Government, when that sort of thing happens, whatever the cause may be, whether increased wages, or the increased cost of goods coming in from abroad, the prices of which we do not control, to look at the whole set-up of the cost-of-living index. We have, from time to time, selected, quite arbitrarily, certain components in the cost-of-living index, and have deliberately and rather artificially lowered, by means of subsidies, the cost of these components in order to offset increases that have taken place in other directions. What I seek to impress on this House is the fact that that is a process that cannot go on indefinitely. It is because it cannot go on indefinitely, that I am anxious to make clear to all those who might be able to influence the factors that lead to an increase in the cost of certain components, to take thought and see what in fact is the inevitable result of what they are doing, because to go on cutting the connection between increased costs and increased prices indefinitely is bound to lead us sooner or later into serious trouble. We are going to keep the thing very carefully under control, I certainly assure my hon. Friend, who, I think, will now see that it is not a question of my doing something which results in an increase, but that I may find myself unable to do something which will prevent an increase.
That is the warning I want to convey. If there was any question of this matter getting out of hand, I would be the first to wish to take hon. Members into my confidence, and seek the support of their influence in checking tendencies which, in the end, might be so disastrous to us all. I hope I have succeeded in making clear just where I stand in this matter. I thought it was necessary, I still think it was necessary, that a warning should be conveyed in the only way it can be conveyed, of what might happen if people did not exercise prudence and restraint, as they have done in the past; I do recognise that. But there is a danger, as I pointed out in my Budget speech, that if a thing goes on indefinitely, with no apparent change, people come to take it for granted. They suppose it can go on

for ever. I should be neglecting my duty if I did not bring this home. It is my duty to see that the working of this whole mechanism on which we rely to keep the cost of living down, to keep it stable, should be made clear, not only in this House but in the country.

Sir W. Smithers: Would the Chancellor point out, in view of what he has said, that to continue to demand increases in wages in present circumstances does no good to anybody?

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Chancellor not recognise that the feeling on this side of the House is that in dealing with this question he concentrates on wages, whereas the big factor in costs is the enormous profits being made by many big concerns?

Mr. Speaker: I must remind the House that we are discussing Income Tax.

Sir J. Anderson: I did not concentrate unduly on wages. My purpose was to call attention to factors which might be controllable. There are other factors which are uncontrollable. As regards profits, Mr. Speaker would pull me up if I went further into that matter.
I pass to the second point which was made by the hon. Member for Leigh about the working of the Pay-as-you-earn system. He read something, which I also saw in the newspapers, suggesting that there was extensive evasion. I want to make this perfectly clear: I have no doubt at all that the introduction of Pay-as-you-earn will have the effect of reducing the existing evasion of tax liabilities to very small dimensions. It is probably the case that as regards a quite limited class of taxpayers and their employers, the new system of Pay-as-you-earn has not yet got quite fully into its stride. I am very glad indeed that attention should be called, as it was called by my hon. Friend opposite, to any classes of case in which the necessary formalities may not perhaps be as strictly observed at the moment as they should be. The Inland Revenue authorities have no doubt whatever that that is only a passing phase, and that the result of the introduction of Pay-as-you-earn, which was so warmly welcomed in the House, will be a great improvement in the efficiency of collection, just as it will be a very great im-


provement in the adjustment of the burden of the tax progressively, week by week, to the means of the taxpayer. It is true that when people with weekly earnings have fluctuating rates, the amounts taken off them by deduction show sharp variations, but that is inherent in a scheme of Pay-as-you-earn, and it is that particular feature which caused justifiable and frequent complaint in regard to the working of the earlier system, by which taxation on a considerable payment often came to be made after an interval of months by way of deduction from sums which were smaller. I hope that I have succeeded in carrying hon. Members with me in justification of this Resolution, which is the one on which we depend, under our constitutional system, for the extension into the current year of those provisions of the Income Tax law on which we have relied on the year just passed.

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward (Kingston-upon-Hull, North West): I would ask my right hon. Friend either to confirm or to deny the statement, which was made by several hon. Gentlemen to-day, that all income in excess of £8o a year is liable to Income Tax. My impression always was that, although there was an abatement of £80 a year, any income up to £100 a year was entirely free from tax.

Sir J. Anderson: I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend. Perhaps I ought to have made some comment on that part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker) in which he dealt with the incidence of taxation on small incomes of various amounts, and seemed to get rather involved in his calculations. There is a substantial part of income which is free from tax altogether, and up to a further limit the rate of taxation is lower than the standard rate. After that point, taxation begins, for the first time, to be collected at the standard rate. Where the tax is collected at the source at the full standard rate, as it must be, an adjustment is made by way of repayment. To ease the position of people whose income is, wholly or to a high degree, subject to deduction at the source, the authorities have made arrangements whereby claims for repayment can be made at short intervals; and they can be dealt with all the more expeditiously if they are recurrent claims, put forward at

periodic intervals, on the same kind of evidence.

Sir R. Tasker: Was I wrong in saying that the first £8o was free of tax and that the next £165 was taxed at 6s. 6d. in the £?

Dr. Russell Thomas: I agree with what my right hon. Friend said about stabilisation and wages, but I believe he implied that it was difficult for the Inland Revenue Department to administer changes of any kind. But would he not consider, in the case of unearned incomes up to £200 a year, putting back the free allowance from £80 to £100?Would this offer much difficulty?

Sir J. Anderson: The free allowance is £110 [Interruption.] The allowance is £8o, but up to £110 there is no tax. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn is quite wrong, I am sure, in the calculation which he made, but I confess that I had some difficulty in following exactly what his calculation was. It certainly is not the case that the tax which is levied goes up beyond l0s., as he suggests.

Major Woolley: Is there any hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give some consideration to the widow, by comparison with other persons who may have no domestic responsibilities?

Sir J. Anderson: I am very willing to consider any point of this kind. I tried to make it clear that the structure of the Income Tax has been the subject of very close and continuous investigation over a long period of years. There is very great practical difficulty, and there are objections in principle to adjusting the structure of a tax so as to take into account small changes in circumstances affecting individuals. I will certainly have a look at the matter.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Fifth Resolution agreed to.

RELIEFS OF PERSONS RESIDENT ABROAD

Sixth Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. Benson: Could we have an explanation of this not very lucid Resolution?

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): Suppose a man has, as often happens, only part of his income liable to United Kingdom Income Tax. Should he have a personal allowance, and, if so, how much? Let me take a concrete case. A man has an income of £1,200 a year, of which £400 is in this country, and, therefore, liable to United Kingdom Income Tax, while £800 is outside this country. Provision has been made in past Finance Acts that, not in all cases but if the owner is a British subject or comes within certain other categories which are set out in Section 24 of the Finance Act, 1920, he shall be given a proportion of the allowance. In the case I have put, one-third of the man's income is liable to United Kingdom Income Tax, and it was Intended, under Section 24 of the 192o Act, that he should have one-third of the allowance. That was done by suggesting in the Section this sort of sum. His total income is £1,200 a year. Suppose that it was all in this country, and all subject to taxation: he would pay £501. Let him pay one-third of that amount. The effect is to give him one-third of his personal allowance of £140.
A case came before the courts recently where the part of the income which was outside the United Kingdom was in the Dominions, and it was decided in the courts that, under Section 24—unintentionally, as I think is quite plain—in making the calculation as to what would have been the tax payable if all the income had been here, you would have to take into account that he had to pay 4s. in the £ Dominion Income Tax. It is clear that that was not intended, and that the House had inadvertently brought in part of the Income Tax code with regard to relief against double taxation, which is not applicable to this particular type of calculation. This in no way interferes with the provisions which exist to see that taxation is not paid twice over in respect of Dominion and United Kingdom Income Tax. It is a small, technical point, but the decision of the court would lead to great complications and great unfairness as between a British subject resident, say, in the United States and another resident in the Dominions. We thought that that ought to be put right.

Mr. Benson: I thank the Attorney-General for his explanation. I am not sure that it is clear yet.

The Attorney-General: It is very difficult to explain without a blackboard.

Mr. Benson: I know that it is very difficult. I am not sure that if the Attorney-General had a blackboard it would help.

The Attorney-General: It would. The calculation has always, until this recent case, been made on the basis which I have explained, and no one has challenged it. If a third of a man's income is here, you give him only one-third of the allowances. Only in the recent case in the Court of Appeal was it suggested that the words used resulted in a man getting more than one-third of the allowances to which he was entitled, although he had only one-third of his income here. It is the purpose of this Resolution to make the law as it has been administered ever since it was put on the Statute Book, without complaint from anybody until this case arose.

Mr. Benson: Is it the position that hitherto the Section has not operated?

The Attorney-General: In 192o the Finance Act provided that a British subject who had one-third of his income here and two-thirds abroad should get one-third of the allowances. It had been administered on that basis until the other day, when it was decided—quite rightly, of course—that the words used in the Section produced a different result in a case where part of the income outside the United Kingdom was in a Dominion and liable to Dominion Income Tax. It is said that in that case the man would get more than one-third of the allowances—a greater relief. That is certainly not what the Inland Revenue and the Chancellor intended at the time, and we think that the way the sum has been done up to now is the right way, and that this decision would produce not only complexities, but unfairness as between a person with part of his income in the Dominions and another with part of his income in the United States. The question is a little complicated.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

LUMP SUM PAYMENT FOR COPYRIGHTS

Seventh Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution,"

Mr. Mander: When we were having a general discussion on the Resolutions, on Budget Day, I raised the question with the Chancellor of whether he ought not, when he made reference to authors, to extend the concession to artists and musicians, and he said, in reply, that he would consider whether that should not be done. It may be that, from the very beginning, the Government intended to act on those lines, because I see that, in the Resolution, the first line says "literary, musical, dramatic or artistic work." It is perfectly clear that it would be possible for the Chancellor to bring these categories within the terms of the concession.
I just want to give one or two reasons to-day why I think this should be done, and I venture to hope that my right hon. Friend will say in his reply that it is the firm intention of the Government to make this concession in the all-round manner that is suggested. If you confined it entirely to authors, the result would be quite absurd and obviously quite unjust. For instance, take as an example, that permanent "source of innocent merriment "—Gilbert and Sullivan. Is it to be said that Gilbert is to receive the concession, but that Sullivan must not be allowed to participate in it? It would be a truly Gilbertian situation, and I cannot think it is one which my right hon. Friend would contemplate or attempt to defend for a moment.
Let me take this question of artists. It is the custom, I believe, for artists to do their work over several years and to hold exhibitions from time to time. They have not got sufficient work, perhaps, to do it every year, but, every two, three or four years, they have sufficient, and these are cases where the work has been done over a period of years. It would appear reasonable that they should be treated in exactly the same way as authors, who have been composing their work over a period of years. I do not know how long in these days it takes artists to complete their work, but I had a certain knowledge of

some periods in the past. Let me take the Pre-Raphaelites and their associates and refer to certain well-known pictures, such as Burne-Jones' "King Cophetua and the Beggar-Maid." It took him four years to complete it. Then there is Ford Madox Brown's "The Last of England," on which he was working for three years. There is also the famous picture, Holman Hunt's "The Light of the World," which took him three years. No doubt, they were working on other things at the same time, but it was spread over that period. This question of copyright and the right of reproduction is a very important one in certain instances. One of the most important was Millais's famous picture "Bubbles," the model for which is an hon. and gallant Member of this House at the present time. That was reproduced all over the country and in many parts of the world, and was of very great value. There, certainly, is a case where, if that picture took more than one year to complete, a similar concession ought to have been given.
I would just refer also to the case of sculptors. It is, I suppose, usual for sculptors to take rather longer than artists to complete their work, owing to the very nature of it. I give one example that came to my knowledge the other day—the eminent Wolverhampton sculptor, Mr. Emerson, whose work, "Golden Youth," such a prominent feature of the Royal Academy in 1942, was purchased by the Wolverhampton Corporation recently. That work, as I happen to know, took him two or three years to complete, and I give that as an example to show why the concession given to authors ought certainly to be extended to sculptors as well as artists.
Finally, there is the question of musicians. I do not know exactly how long it takes a musician to compose a work, but Handel composed "Messiah" in 23 days, which was very quick work. There are many cases where famous musical works have been composed over a period of years, and I say, therefore, that there is every reason why this admirable concession, relating to literature and art, which the Government have introduced, should be made as wide as possible in its scope and should certainly extend to the particular categories which I have detailed. I venture to hope—it may well


be that it is the intention of the Government, but, if so, the Chancellor did not make it clear in his Budget speech—that my right hon. Friend will here and now make plain that it is intended to cover all those referred to in the Resolution now before the House.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): I should like to make it quite clear that the point raised by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) will be met. The hon. Member called attention to the fact that the wording of the Resolution does, in fact, refer to the authors of "literary, musical, dramatic or artistic work," and the word "author" will be used in the Clause of the Finance Bill, in relation to the authors of literary, musical, dramatic and artistic work. That includes not only the writers of books, but painters and sculptors.

Sir R. Tasker: And architects?

Mr. Assheton: The word "author" has, I believe, a similar meaning in the Copyright Act of 1911, and I think my hon. Friends will agree that the present Chancellor is a very susceptible Chancellor, so far as reason is concerned.

Mr. A. MacLaren: I cannot quite make out the meaning of the words, that any part of the copyright
shall be treated as having become receivable, in an earlier year or earlier years.

Mr. Assheton: That means that part of the income will be put back into the income of previous years.

Sir R. Tasker: Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear whether there is any justification for excluding architects? When an architect has prepared a plan of a building, those plans are actually claimed as copyright, and he says no one can use them without his permission.

Mr. Assheton: I am afraid this is not the time, nor am I competent, to give advice to the House as to the definition of copyright.

Mr. MacLaren: Architects all copy one another, so it does not matter.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution" put, and agreed to.

EXCESS PROFITS TAX

Eighth Resolution read a Second Time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The Attorney-General: It may be for the convenience of the House if I give a short description of what is intended to be done under this Resolution. When the Excess Profits Tax was introduced, the problem of possible tax evasion had to be faced, and, in the Finance Act of 1941, as presented to the House, there was a provision that, if one of the purposes of a transaction was tax evasion or tax diminution, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue could, in effect, treat it as if it had not been done. It was pointed out with considerable force, in many quarters of the House that those words may effect great hardship, and that there were a number of transactions which were perfectly legitimate and, very likely, ought to be encouraged, but which would result in a certain diminution of the tax to be paid. Therefore, the words were altered to "the main purpose," but the Chancellor of the day gave a very clear warning to the Committee that, if that alteration of phrase proved ineffective, he would come back to the House and ask that the Clause should be strengthened retrospectively in order to prevent evasion of Excess Profits Tax. That did, unfortunately, arise.
There have been a number of cases. I will not detail them at this stage, but, if I did, I am sure that the House would realise that they were evasion cases, some of them rather gross cases, such as a boy of fifteen being made a director and given a percentage of shares, in order to get the allowance of a working proprietor. The difficulty in the words "the main purpose" has been that evidence has come in of people saying "We did not think about Excess Profits Tax and there is some other reason." It is, of course, difficult for the Revenue Commissioners to produce counter-evidence, or for the Commissioners to say, in some cases, "We are satisfied that this was the main purpose." What my hon. Friend proposes is to strengthen the working of the Clause by words of this kind so that it must be shown to be one of the main purposes. It is not necessary to show that it is the main purpose, but it should


be shown that it was one of the main purposes, and I think provision may also be made that, if it is found that there is a substantial diminution in the amount of E.P.T. to be paid, that can be taken into account in deciding the question. Those are the lines on which the Chancellor desires to proceed, and that is the reason why we are asking the House to pass this Resolution.

Mr. Benson: I think this is the second time on which the Government have fallen down on this question of "main purpose." I think I am right in saying that I was not one of those who was afraid of the dangers of hardship. On the contrary, I think I pointed out at the time that we had already been compelled, in the steps we had taken, to prevent tax avoidance to change the wording "main purpose" when it related to transfer of assets abroad. I think, first of all, there were, in the Clause dealing with the transfer of assets abroad, the words "main purpose," and one hon. Gentleman got away with it on the ground that the main purpose of transferring assets abroad was because he was afraid of the Labour Party. It was found, again, that it is very difficult to assess motives when somebody says he never thought of tax avoidance or evasion. Motive is impossible to prove. I shall be very pleased indeed to see this Clause in the Finance Bill, but I am not at all certain, from what the Attorney-General said, that there is going to be a very great deal of improvement. I think when you start introducing questions of motive and purpose, you are on very slippery ground, and I hope that, in the Finance Bill discussions the right hon. Gentleman will fortify himself with examples of what has been done in this question of purpose when it came before a court of law.

Question, "That this House doth agree, with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

TRADING WITH THE ENEMY

Ninth Resolution read a Second Time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The Attorney-General: This Resolution is designed to deal with the funds which are vested as enemy property in the Custodian of Enemy Property. Under a

decision of the courts shortly after the last war, the beneficial property in such funds is, as it were, in suspense. Take "XY" as an enemy, or technically an enemy, owning £10,000 here and producing whatever it does a year—that money is vested in the Custodian and ceases to be the income or the estate of "XY," certainly for Surtax or Estate Duty purposes. It may be that Income Tax itself can be levied, but not Surtax or Death Duties, and if the income was a small one you could not repay the allowances. The object of the Clause, which will be based on this Resolution, is to enable tax to be collected in respect of the income on the estates of enemy property under the control of the Custodian in the ordinary way. If income is liable to Income Tax and Surtax, such taxes can be handed over to the Revenue. If the owner of the property dies, Estate Duty can be contributed to the extent to which the estate is liable. That is the purpose of the Clause.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

ESTATE DUTY

Tenth Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The Attorney-General: There are a number of rather complicated Clauses, which will not be found very easy reading, based on this Resolution, but their main purpose is to amend some Sections in the Finance Act of 1940 dealing with avoidance of Estate Duty. The form of avoidance which was dealt with by those Sections was as follows. A man transferred his estate or property to a company. He may have retained some shares in the company, but the benefits which he continued to draw from the company were in excess of the share interest which he had as the legal holder of shares on ordinary principles. When he died, therefore, the estate only paid on the share rights, whereas, in fact, he had been enjoying a much larger proportion of the company's income. Very broadly, that was dealt with by taking the amount of the income of the company he had had in the last three years before he died, and, supposing that that was one-third of the whole of the income


of the company, then collecting tax on a third of the estate of the company. It has been found that the machinery which was then set up was defective in a number of ways.
In the main the alterations which these Clauses will make remove certain anomalies and hardships which were pointed out to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the Law Society. It would not be right to say that the changes are all in favour of the taxpayer, because it would not be true. In some cases we are simplifying the machinery and making it, as we think, more just, but it will work in favour of the Revenue. Broadly speaking, it is the representation by the Law Society as to the injustice in certain cases of these provisions that has led to this Resolution and the Clauses which have been based on it. I do not think that the House would want me at this stage to go into any great details. Obvious anomalies have arisen on the way in which you calculate the portions of the income; other anomalies have arisen in the way the net income is calculated. Under the law as it is at present, you collect this amount of duty from the company and it has been represented, on behalf of shareholders, that that is unfair to them. Though the Clauses will be found rather difficult to follow, they do not raise any great point of principle. We are taking this rather complicated code and making it more efficient, workable and just, as a result of four years' experience.

Sir R. Tasker: It is very comforting to learn that the chief legal luminary agrees that these Income Tax provisions are complicated and difficult. I am absolutely fogged by them and do not understand them at all. I rise not to tell my right hon. and learned Friend about my own ignorance, but to call attention to the method by which Estate Duty is levied. The object of this Resolution apparently is to deal with the man who turns his estate into a company.

The Attorney-General: No, Sir.

Sir R. Tasker: Perhaps not quite so, but in general terms that is the object, and I want to draw attention to the man who does not wish to turn his estate into a company. The value of an estate. is determined by the district valuer. I will give my right hon. and learned Friend

the case of a man who died in 1939. The district valuer valued his house at £1,250, upon which duty was levied and paid. The widow died in January of this year, when the district valuer said that the value of that house was £2,200. In the issue of the OFFICIAL REPORT, of 27th April, there appears the following:
Mr. STOKES asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any data exist whereby he can now ascertain what was the value of land as in March, 1939.
The answer was in the affirmative. The Chancellor was further interrogated by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams):
Does the right hon. Gentleman keep the same data for the purpose of Death Duty valuations?—
and the answer was
Yes, Sir."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th April, 1944; cols. 925–926, Vol. 399.]
Where is the consistency between this class and what the Chancellor stated applied to the individual? I cannot see the difference between Mr. "A" being a private individual and Mr. "B" being a company or part of a company. This Resolution does not appear to go far enough and does not clear up the situation. What people want to-day is a common measure of justice but that is denied them. What is the remedy in the case that I am stating?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I do not think the remarks of the hon. Member are relevant to the Resolution before the House, which clearly deals with the charge of duty in respect of the estates of a company. I do not think that that is the case of the hon. Member at all.

Sir R. Tasker: I am aware that I am treading on very thin ice. My right hon. and learned Friend said that he wanted to remove anomalies and hardships, and so do I. He wants to remove anomalies and hardships of a company and I want to remove anomalies and hardships as they apply to the individual. You have ruled that that is not in Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I have incurred the frown of Jove, and I will therefore resume my seat. I give fair warning that the Government have not heard the last but only the beginning of my complaint.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

NATIONAL DEBT (PERMANENT ANNUAL CHARGE)

Resolution reported:
That it is expedient to authorise

(a) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the sum of four hundred and twenty million pounds for the permanent annual charge for the National Debt for the current financial year instead of the sum of three hundred and fifty-five million pounds;
(b) the provision out of money borrowed for the purpose under the National Loans Act, 1939, instead of out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt of the sums required for the current financial year for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of Sub-section (4) of Section twenty-three of the Finance Act, 1928, as amended by any subsequent enactment."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. Tinker: There is one point I would like to have cleared up. The White Paper dealing with the Resolution says:
To authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund the sum of £420,000,000 for the permanent annual charge for the National Debt for the current financial year instead of the sum of £355,000,000.
That is an increase of £65,000,000 and the House is entitled to know where this extra money is going and what is the cause. I would like to have some explanation. I have some idea in my own mind, but I am not quite satisfied.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): If the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) will look at the Financial Statement presented to the House at the same time as the Budget, he will observe that the estimated expenditure for interest and management of National Debt this year is £420,000,000—it is in Table No. 12. The great increase in the amount of interest is undoubtedly due to the fact that we have borrowed a great deal of money during the past year on which we have to pay interest, and also due to the fact, I am afraid, that we are going to have to go on borrowing a great deal of money during the current year on which we shall also have to pay interest. It is not due to the fact that the rate of interest is rising but to the fact that we have had to borrow so much more money.

Mr. Mathers: The right hon. gentleman is not suggesting that he wants to stop borrowing?

Mr. Assheton: No, indeed, I wish we could.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS

REPORT [27th April]

AMENDMENT OF LAW

Resolution reported:
That it is expedient to amend the law relating to the National Debt and the Public Revenue, and to make further provision in connection with Finance.

Resolution agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Assheton.

FINANCE BILL,

"to grant certain duties, to alter other duties and to amend the law relating to the Public Revenue and the National Debt, and to make further provision in connection with Finance"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 21.]

NATIONAL LOANS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. Woodburn: I would like on the occasion of the Second Reading of the National Loans Bill to raise a point of some technical interest, but also one of importance from the point of view of the cost of running the war.
I am not sure whether it is within the knowledge of the House that the Select Committee on National Expenditure is not authorised to make any inquiry into the cost of borrowing for running the war; that is a kind of expenditure which does not come under our purview. Therefore, it falls to the House in some way to


examine from time to time what that occasions in the way of expenditure. I would like to raise the special point of the amount of money paid to the banks in this country on account of new money created by them for the purpose of running the war. I am not quite sure from the replies given on behalf of the Chancellor as to whether the Government take the view that the banks do not create money at all. If they take that view, they are certainly at least 30 years behind the times in regard to the economists, and certainly they are holding a view which is contrary to the declared opinion of the Macmillan Committee, and the declared opinion of many authorities who have dealt with this subject.
When the Financial Statement is presented to the House, there is no indication there as to what proportion of the money which is borrowed is a transfer of existing purchasing power from the community to the Government—which I will describe as real borrowing—and the gap which is filled by the creation of extra credit by the banks. In rough figures, the Ways and Means advances of these Treasury Bills have increased by £2, 000,000,000 since the war began—they have multiplied over three times—and the banks have created Treasury Deposit Receipts to the extent of £1,376,000,000. They have transferred £600,000,000 odd to War Loan, which means that the rate of interest has been increased from 1⅛ per cent. to at least 2½ per cent. If we take the cost of this, so far as one can judge, the additional income to the banks for this servicing of Treasury Bills amounts to about £20,000,000 a year, and the Treasury Deposits Receipts to about £14,000,000 a year and, on the Conversion, about £12,000,000 per year which would appear to be an extra interest payable to the banks in these various forms of £46,000,000 per year. This year, about £700,000,000 seems to have been added to this gap, which means a further £7,000,000 interest to the banks.
The question I would like to put to the Chancellor and to the right hon. Gentleman is whether the House can have any explanation of what steps are taken to see that that payment is justified. Now I know that it might be replied that the banks pay back excess profits in the same

way as any other firm, but we know that it is the tradition of the banks to build up their strength, and that usually takes the form of what are called hidden reserves. I am assured by a person qualified to know, since he is part of the machinery of the banks, a bank director, that banks have ways and means of doing that, which we all know. I think it is true to say that in some cases the banks do not value their property at anything like the extent at which it ought to be valued, and there are other ways of sinking costs. To some extent, I think the banks are really their own masters in declaring what are their profits.
Is there any service that the banks are rendering to the country which justifies this extra income being paid? I do not take the view that you can have what is called interest-free money, because the banks must pay their clerks, they must keep up their organisation, and they must carry through the service which is required. I recognise that in the course of the war the banks have had less of what are called ordinary deposits, which may be normally at the rate of five per cent., and, therefore, that these ordinary deposits are not bringing the same income to the banks. Even there, however, the ordinary deposits in the banks, so far as I can see, have come down only by about £100,000,000. That is only a reduction in their income of £5,000,000 per annum. Now the banks have, if anything, smaller staffs than they had before the war. There may be some costs which have gone up, but this is an enormous sum to be paying out. The Question I would like to put to the Government, which it may not be possible to answer to-day, is: If it is right that the profits of the Issue Department of the Bank of England should come to the State, and they amount to about £9,000,000 per year now, what justification is there for a huge income which arises out of Government action not coming to the State but going to the private banking concern's of this country? What steps are taken to ensure that the assets of the banks are not being built up in what is normally considered a legitimate fashion but which is depriving the Government of the excess profits which ought to come back? To the best of my knowledge, the banks so far have not paid excess profits and have not shown excess profits.
The other point I would like to put is this. When the war is finished, I see no possible way of reducing this huge indebtedness. Looking back, it is amazing to see that the deposits of the last war were about £500 less than a million pounds, and the Cunliffe Committee reported on this increase owing to the incidence of the last war. But now it has gone up to thousands, and these thousands of millions will remain as a permanent part of our debt for ever. The only way it can really be liquidated, and one of the ways which will be adopted, is to borrow from the public at a greater rate than 2½ per cent. in order to pay off the bank loans at 1 per cent.; in other words, to liquidate the bank loans we have to double the rate of interest payable on the loans. If our national income after the war becomes reduced, all these costs spread over a smaller national income will raise a problem, perhaps beyond the capacity of this country to meet. From the point of view of the future I think that this is a question which must be looked at seriously. I raised the point two years ago, argued the case in detail and proved the point, so far as the creation of bank deposits are concerned. At that time the Chancellor promised to look into it and to reply to me. So far, however, nothing has been said and I think, when the Government are asking us to pass a National Loans Bill authorising them to borrow, and when we are appealing to the general public to hand over their money in great quantities to the Government, any kind of lending which might have the effect, at least after the war, of lessening the value of the people's savings, or in any way making it more difficult to pay the interest on the legitimate transfer of purchasing power from the people to the Government, must be carefully looked into.
As I say, I have no objection to the banks receiving payment for the services they render, I have no objection under the present system to them receiving a reasonable profit, but I think that the Government and the country must look very carefully before paying over to the banks the millions that are mounting up merely as the result of activities which are for Government action, and the creation of the necessary power to make use of the labours and energy of our population.

Mr. Asshetan: My hon. Friend did not give me notice that he would raise this particular matter to-day, and I should not care to give him a full reply on the matters he has raised without considerable thought. They are matters of very great interest, and also of very high financial policy, and an opportunity may perhaps offer itself before very long when either I, or my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, may be able to deal with them at some considerable length. I should, however, like to make one or two short points.
My hon. Friend referred to the fact that the banks have much smaller staffs now than they had before the war, and therefore their expenses must have been reduced. As against that, he must not overlook the fact that the banks are making up the pay of their men who are away at the war. That, of course, is a very considerable burden upon them. Then again, on the question of excess profits, my hon. Friend suggested that up to now banks had not paid excess profits. I think that the late Mr. McKenna, who wrote a pamphlet on this subject not very long before he died, also referred to the fact that at that time no banks had paid any excess profits. I think I. can give my hon. Friend this assurance on behalf of the Board of Inland Revenue, that if the banks have not paid excess profits they have not made excess profits. The officials of the Board of Inland Revenue are quite aware of all the various arrange-merits made and quite properly made by banks and other institutions for building up their reserves and for providing against the future. All that of course will be taken carefully into account by the officials of the Board of Inland Revenue when dealing with these particular questions. I hope my hon. Friend will allow me to leave the matter there to-day and I ask the House to give this Bill a second reading.

Mr. Benson: I would like to add one word with regard to what my hon. Friend said about banks. Both he and the Financial Secretary are rather groping in the dark, far the simple reason that neither of them has any information as to what the banks are doing and what profits they are making, and that applies to the whole of the country. The banks are now so vital a part of what one might call the national machinery of finance that


I think it is about time that the old cloak of obscurity which has always shrouded banking activities and banking accounts should be lifted. There is no reason why banks should not publish accounts just as full as those of industrial concerns, but the annual accounts published by banks give no vital information whatsoever. They leave one completely in the dark as to the position of the banks and I think that is very unhealthy. If banks were really private concerns, there might be something to be said for allowing them to comply barely, and with the minimum amount of information, with the Companies Acts, but the banks have now become, as I have said, so vital a part of our financial machinery that the country is entitled to much fuller information about their financial position, their profits and their activities. It may be, if that information were published, that much of the suspicion against banks would disappear, but unquestionably the fact remains that they appear to have made very handsome increases in their revenue owing to financing Government borrowing.
That may or may not be true, but it appears to be so and it can only be dissipated if the facts are published. With regard to E.P.T. another problem arises. It is perfectly true, as Mr. McKenna said, that the banks have not hitherto paid it, but they were extraordinarily fortunate in their standard years in that bank profits took into consideration the variations in the value of investments and assets, and in that the standard years happened to be years in which investments increased in value, with the result that the banks had an extraordinarily high standard for E.P.T. purposes due, not to their earnings, but to their earnings, plus a very big jump in the value of assets that they held. That is the reason why they had not paid E.P.T. hitherto. There are grounds for assuming that they are making on their current transactions a very much higher income than was represented in the standard years by their normal trading activities. As I have said, what we require is more information about banking accounts.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

GAS (SPECIAL ORDERS)

Resolved:
That the Draft of the Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Wolver-hampton Gas Company, which Draft was presented on 29th March and published, be approved."—[Mr. Tom Smith.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pym.]

TY GWYN FARM, GILWERN (TENANCY)

Mr. Ness Edwards: On 16th March the Minister of Agriculture answered a series of Questions put by myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Jackson) in relation to the eviction of a tenant from Ty Gwyn Farm, Gilwern, near Abergavenny. These Questions related to the right hon. Gentleman's action in so far as he had agreed that the tenancy of this farm should be terminated by the tenant. In order that this rather sordid story shall be made plain to the House I propose to indicate the facts of the case, so that Members may have the chance of judging for themselves. This farm was taken over by the father of the present tenant in 1896 and it has been in the family ever since. When the father died, in 1920, the present tenant took over and has farmed it up to date. The farm consists of 164 acres, part being in Monmouthshire and the other part being in Breconshire. The rent of this farm is £350 a year—an extremely high rent for a farm of this size, and, so far as my knowledge goes, a higher rent per acre than is paid anywhere else in that Vale. Throughout the period that this tenant has had this farm he has never once been behind with his rent, not even during the bad years. What sort of farmer is this man who is to be kicked out of his farm?
The Minister of Agriculture, in his reply to the questions which were put to him, hinted darkly as to his qualities but, as I have said, what sort of man is this farmer? He holds 14 first prizes for ploughing in three counties. Many Members will remember Sir John Herbert, who sat in this House as the Member for the Monmouthshire Boroughs. This tenant farmer


holds the "Sir John Herbert" silver cup for the best ploughing horses. He also holds a number of prizes for hedging and ditching and, in general, is regarded in that neighbourhood as a first-class farmer. It is of interest to note that both the Brecon and Radnor and Monmouthshire County War Agricultural Executive Committees have not made a single complaint against the quality of the farm or against its production. Never once has this man failed to exceed the quota of ploughing laid down by both these County War Agricultural Executive Committees.
Last year this farm was sold over his head, not to another farmer, but to a bus proprietor, for over £6,500. This is a rather fabulous price to pay for a farm of that size in that area. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor can tell the House that this price is twice the average paid for farms of that size. This bus proprietor bought the farm over the head of the tenant farmer and within a week he had resold it to a building contractor for over £8,000. Here is speculation. Why did the building contractor buy the land at this inflated price? Did he do so in order to farm it, or as a speculation? This is certainly relevant to the argument about that portion of the farm which is in Monmouthshire, and which is adjacent to the main Gilwern-Abergavenny road overlooking the Usk Vale. This postwar building site has been bought at this inflated price, and the Minister has agreed that this tenant farmer shall be kicked out in order that the post-war profits of a building contractor shall be safeguarded.
The new owner, the building contractor, served a notice to quit upon the tenant, who refused to accept it. With amazing rapidity, within two weeks, the Minister had acceded to the request of the contractor to serve this notice. It is astonishing how rich men can work their way through regulations to the penalty of poor men. What steps had the Minister taken, as I understand he is obliged to take? He is obliged to ask the County War Agricultural Executive Committee for their advice. He asked the Brecon and Radnor Committee for their advice, and they unanimously recommended that the tenant should be allowed to stay. He then asked the Monmouthshire Committee for their advice, which was that the tenant must stay. Yet, despite the recommendations of these two

statutory bodies, both charged with the responsibility of advising the Minister, by some hook or crook the right hon. Gentleman consented to the turning out of this tenant. As a result of his action resolutions of protest were passed by the local authorities, the Food Executive Committee, and branches of the Farmers' Union in Breconshire, Radnorshire and Monmouthshire. They were sent to the Minister but with no effect, and particulars of the case were then sent on to my hon Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor. My hon. Friend corresponded with the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not wish to deal with that correspondence, but it is astonishing how easy it is for some of us to become indifferent to injusiice when we get promotion—

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Tom Williams): Will the hon. Member quote from that correspondence to justify his statement about indifference?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I would do so if I had the correspondence with me, but neither the right hon. Gentleman nor myself knew that this Debate was coming on at this time and I am afraid that I have not the correspondence to hand at the moment.

Mr. Williams: Then please do not repeat the charge of indifference.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Thanks to the courtesy of an hon. Friend who is sitting near me I shall be able to get the correspondence in a few minutes, and then we shall be able to chase what might after all be a red herring in this business.

Mr. Williams: No personal charges.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I will support them. As a result of the Questions which were put to the Minister on 16th March he said that he was not satisfied that any speculation had taken place. Will my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary say that a farm which is sold by one person to another, and then to another, within a space of one week, at a profit of £1,500, is not speculation? This is a sheer case of speculation.

Mr. Williams: We will see.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, we will see. Let us go one step further. How many more farms has this building contractor to


buy during this war before the right hon. Gentleman will accept it as speculation? The Minister of Agriculture was asked how many farms this man had bought and he said he did not know. I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to say that this is the first farm which has been bought by the building contractor. Why has he bought it? Why is he amassing building materials on the farm now if it is not for the purpose of building?
The Minister then tried to defend himself on another count, and that is that the change of tenancy would not reduce food production. Who is going to farm this land? Does the Minister know? Does my right hon. Friend know? Is this man going to leave his palatial residence in Cardiff to farm the land, or is he going to live on the other farm that he has bought since the war? He is going to put in as bailiff a building contractor's foreman who has not spent a day on a farm in his life, to farm this land, and this is the man who is to replace the champion, farmer of the Vale of Usk. Does my right hon. Friend say there will be no reduction in food production? The Minister suggested in his reply to my hon. Friend that the advice that this owner would get from other farmers would enable him to maintain food production, and even improve it. Are relatives in high places of such great consequence as that? Is their advice so valuable as that? How is it that this man has been able to manoeuvre getting consent to turning out a yeoman farmer in order to put an Irish day labourer on his farm?
The Minister sought to stave off this Debate by dark hints as to the quality of the farming of the present tenant. I challenge my right hon. Friend to produce a better farmer, or a better farm in the district. Only last week my hon. Friend walked over every field there. He can tell the House that this is a successful and prosperous farmer with a scientific knowledge of farming. From the point of view of farming the Minister has no case. These dark hints about this Grade B farmer, as the Minister described him, are very interesting. He was Graded B in 1940, and no regrading has taken place until recently he was unanimously recommended as a Grade A farmer. Here is a Grade A farmer to be put on the road and an Irish labourer put in to run the farm. [An HON. MEMBER "By a C3

Minister."] I do not want to be offensive about the Minister. I could not be offensive about the matter if I wanted to. My hon. Friend and I went to the farm together. The Minister's conversation with me behind the Speaker's Chair gave me some doubts. The correspondence between my hon. Friend and my Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor also gave me some doubts. We decided to visit it and my hon. Friend was highly pleased with it. It was producing first rate results. It had a better corn production per acre than any farm in the district. For its size it is carrying a heavier stock than any farm in the district. As we drove up to it we saw two big lorries conveying bricks, pipes, cement, tiles and cement posts, and 12 building trade operators riot residing in the locality. I should think there was nearly, £2,000 worth of stuff, all for the purpose of erecting under the terms of his licence a temporary hut for workmen. What are permits, what is petrol, what are materials, what is labour to a man who has got rich on Government contracts? I do not know how he has been able to ride rough shod through this. As a matter of equity this is a damnable thing. The word is not sufficiently severe to describe what has taken place. I hope my right hon. Friend will not attempt to draw a veil aross the indecency of this incident or try to defend the Minister for the very tragic mistake he has made in consenting to turn out this very decent farmer.

Mr. Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for having taken up this case during my absence, and I congratulate him on having dealt with such great ability with what I feel must be somewhat strange material for him. I hope I should be able to establish such a case if I had to deal with coal mines. I should like to confirm broadly all the facts my hon. Friend has mentioned, especially his description of the farm and the farmer. I am satisfied, as a farmer, that it is a very good average farm and that the tenant should never have been disturbed. I have examined every single field on it and found the crops very good. I have looked through the stock averages far past years, and they were good. I can find nothing which does not prove that this man is an able and efficient farmer. I agree that more could be produced pro-


vided he could have all the capital and equipment that he wanted and provided he could get all the things which, speaking from practical experience, are not available for ordinary farmers but seem to be easily available to amateurs who have plenty of money. The House may think that there is something behind this and that this man is not a first-class farmer because he was graded B. In the early days of 1940 the Breconshire War Agricultural Executive Committee, rightly or wrongly, decided to be very strict, and only farms which it could honestly be said could not produce more stuff were graded A. A very small percentage of farms in the county are graded A, but I am certain it would never be suggested that the farms they graded B were inefficient. I believe it was their intention by grading farms B to ginger them up to increase production.
The War Agricultural Executive Committee advised the Minister not to turn this farmer out, and the Minister's refusal of their recommendation has caused a great deal of heart-burning in this district. I hope, now that they have heard what we have to say, the whole thing will be reconsidered, the notice to quit will be withdrawn, and Mr. Llewellyn will be allowed to remain on the farm, the only home he and his wife have ever known, at least for the duration of the war, because of they are turned out, with the present stigma cast upon them—because there is no doubt that the excuse is that they are not efficient farmers—it will break the hearts of two very fine and much respected people.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Tom Williams): I am quite sure that no hon. Member in the House who has listened to the two speeches will envy me my job at this moment. I want to say at the outset that I quite appreciate that there must be local feeling in this matter, but neither local feeling nor the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Edwards) will inspire me into making any statement which might in the most remote way reflect upon the tenant farmer, whose notice to quit is expiring slowly but surely. The case I have to answer, however, is the decision of the Minister in this particular case, and that answer I hope to give without either feeling or adverse reference to the tenant

farmer at all. I have certainly no knowledge of the person who bought the land, who is about to farm the land. Therefore, I can declare that I am strictly impartial in anything I may have to say.
This is a case which comes within Defence Regulation 62 (4A). That Regulation provides that where an agricultural holding is subject to a contract of sale made since the outbreak of war or has been sold since the outbreak of war, any notice to quit the holding given to the tenant shall be null and void unless the Minister of Agriculture consents to the notice. The Minister explained to the House on 11th November, 1941, that the primary object of this Regulation is to provide a deterrent to speculation in agricultural land. That is well known by hon. Members. Before we go further let us be quite clear in our minds as to what is meant by speculation. My right hon. Friend has never taken the view that this particular Regulation should prevent ordinary investment in agricultural land in the ordinary way. I think that the House of Commons clearly understood the statement when made on 11th November, 1941, that the Regulation was designed to respond to a feeling expressed in all parts of the House on previous occasions that where speculation was the object of a purchaser of land, then the Minister should have the power to prevent the buyer from giving notice to the sitting tenant, in other words to prevent speculation in agricultural land at the expense of the sitting tenant. My right hon. Friend did not then, and still does not, wish to prevent investment in land in the ordinary way by persons who wish to put the land to its proper function, namely, the production of food.
The object of the Regulation was definitely to prevent a speculator from aiming at a quick turnover and quick profits—I shall reply to the hon. Member for Caerphilly on this later—either by buying an agricultural holding, giving notice to the tenant and selling at a higher price with vacant possession, or inducing the sitting tenant in order to save his farm and his home and his living, to pay a much higher price than would otherwise be the case. This Regulation effectively enables the Minister to achieve that object. It is of the greatest possible importance that this Regulation should be administered impartially, and for that purpose a very careful administrative


procedure has been followed in every case, including the case of the Ty Gwyn Farm. In the first place an application for consent to a notice to quit an agricultural holding is referred to the appropriate War Agricultural Executive Committee for investigation and report, and two specific questions are put to the Committee; one, is the case one of potential speculation, and, two, if the notice to quit takes effect, is there a likelihood of an increase in the production of food from the holding? If the answer to the first question is "Yes,' namely that there is a potential speculation, or to the second, "No," namely that there is no likelihood of an increase in food production, then consent to the notice is refused, and the notice therefore becomes null and void.
Some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Caerphilly, think that no reasonably good farmer ought to be disturbed from his holding during the course of the war. Other hon. Members hold very different views. I personally have my own view, and it may be that I agree or disagree with my hon. Friend, but we are not discussing that question at this moment, and that is the point I must emphasise. We are not discussing whether a tenant farmer should be displaced or not. We are simply discussing now action taken under Regulation 62 (4A). We are discussing, as it were, the merits of the decision taken by the Minister on the Ty Gwyn Farm case. In this case the normal procedure was applied. We sought to ascertain what the intention of the purchaser of this farm really was, that is, the person applying for consent to the notice. We learned that the present owner purchased the farm from a previous owner, who had himself purchased the farm when it was sold by public auction. Would my hon. Friend suggest that a farm put up for public auction is purchased exclusively for speculation? Hon. Members who heard the speech of my hon. Friend are entitled to know this. This farm was put up for public auction. I understand that the sitting tenant was present at the auction. [An HON. MEMBER: "And bid."] Unfortunately for him, and I have the fullest sympathy with the individual, he was unable to rise to the final bid. The farm, therefore, was purchased at public auction by a new owner.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Let us have the facts.

Mr. Williams: As far as the facts can be given I hope they will be laid bare. The farm was purchased at public auction. Is that denied?

Mr. Ness Edwards: No, but what I am asking my right hon. Friend is to state the facts, and are not the facts these: The tenant went up to £6,000, which was too high a price, in his view, for the farm, and a 'bus proprietor bid £6,500, and then he again sold the farm privately for £8,000 odd? These are the facts.

Mr. Williams: If my hon. Friend would contain his soul in patience for a moment I had intended to relate all the facts as I know them. Either the decision of the Minister was right, according to the Regulations about which we are speaking, or it was not right, and the withholding of facts will in no way affect the matter. The farm was put up for sale at public auction. It was purchased at a price which was not notified to the Department. The individual who made the purchase—

Mr. Craven Ellis: The right hon. Gentleman has not yet made it clear whether the owner put up the farm for auction prior to the Department consenting to the notice or subsequent to it.

Mr. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman would have waited perhaps it would not have been necessary for him to make that interjection. The farm was put up for public auction. It was purchased by some purchaser or other, whether he was a 'bus proprietor I have no means of telling. I take the hon. Member's word for it. It was purchased, I am now told, at £6,500. No notice was given to the tenant by the first buyer. Therefore, no infringement took place. No action could be taken under the Regulations. None was called for. Subsequently, however, the 'bus proprietor, if 'bus proprietor he was, sold the land to a willing buyer, the present owner of the farm, and, so we are informed, made a quick profit of £1,500. I do not know the figures, we were not notified [Interruption.] I listened to the hon. Member make his case, and I listened to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Jackson). If hon. Members do not wish to listen I do not mind in the least.
The first purchaser took a step which is permissible for any person in this land with a sum of money at his disposal. Anybody can buy land if they have sufficient money. If somebody wants to sell it there is no power in the hands of the Ministry of Agriculture to prevent it, and no power under this Regulation to prevent it, unless it is purchased expressly for speculation and the buyer tries to interfere with the tenant. My hon. Friend is bound to agree that the first buyer did not interfere with the tenant. So far as the first purchaser is concerned the Minister of Agriculture was not involved; that is clearly understood, so that a charge of speculation under the terms of Regulation 62 (4A) cannot be sustained. It is true that the person bought the land at a price and sold it at a profit, but so far the Ministry of Agriculture did not enter the scene at all.

Mr. W. J. Brown: He speculated, but it was not a speculation?

Mr. Williams: Not covered by Regulation 62 (4A). That is the only Regulation there is on the matter. The second buyer, however, proceeds to give notice to the sitting tenant, and only at that point does the Minister of Agriculture enter the field. The second buyer seeks permission to give notice to his tenant. He must apply to the Minister of Agriculture for consent. The Minister must be satisfied, I repeat, first that the land has not been purchased for speculation, and secondly—

Mr. Bellenger: It all turns on the interpretation of "speculation" or "investment." How does the Ministry of Agriculture know that this farm will not be run and improved and then turned over again as an investment, with the sitting tenant already gone?

Mr. Williams: Neither the Minister of Agriculture nor, in fact, any other Minister, is expected to be a prophet. He can only act upon available information and the advice of those on the spot. When the two specific questions are put to a County War Agriculture Committee the advice given to the Minister on the first question "Is it felt that this is purchased for the purpose of speculation?" enables him to decide yes or no. The advice was sought and the replies given were to the effect that the second purchaser, the present owner of the

land, had not purchased for the purpose of speculation and that, in fact, all his intentions were to farm the land himself.
If, therefore, that is the expressed intention of the new owner, to farm the land himself, the only other question which the Minister has to answer is "Is it possible that the new tenant will improve the production of food from the farm?" If the Minister is satisfied that there is a likelihood of an increase in the food production, then he has no power to withhold his consent to the notice. The Minister is expected, having received the information sought from the War Executive Committee, from his Land Commissioner and from any other source, to reach his decision. In this case the Minister reached his decision after having taken into consideration all the relevant factors.

Mr. Stokes: Except speculation.

Mr. Williams: If the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) would be decent enough to sit and listen for a minute, he might learn what the subject is about. It is neither about tanks nor banks; it is about farming. If the hon. Member will do me the favour of listening for a few moments he will see that I am trying to make the best answer I can to the question. The Minister received all the information that could be obtained. The first thing he found was that the sitting tenant was a B farmer. [An HON MEMBER: "What is a B farmer?"] There are three categories, A, B and C, and B means that he is neither A nor C but happens to be B. In other words, there is a chance for improvement and that category was not imposed upon him by the Minister, but by the War Agriculture Executive Committee.

Mr. Ness Edwards: In fairness, will you agree that the man has been classified A?

Mr. Williams: No. If the hon. Member will not exaggerate his case, he will, in fact, improve it. The War Agriculture Executive Committee placed this farmer in category B and it is true to say that he is still in category B. The hon. Member spoke heatedly about this farmer who is in Category A. I said in my opening sentences that nothing I should say here would adversely reflect upon the farmer. I do not want to say an unpleasant word about him. All I am trying to say is


that the Minister is called upon to reach an impartial decision upon the basis of the facts as known to him, and the facts as known to him in October, 1943, were that this farmer was a category B farmer. He also knows that, on the general evidence, including a report on soil analysis of the farm, that that was a fairly correct category to place him in. Whether the new owner of the land can produce more food or not is one of those questions that time alone will answer. All we know is that it is assumed that he has plenty of capital—he would not have bought the farm otherwise—and he has available to him the excellent assistance of a brother-in-law who farms almost next door. [An HON. MEMBER: "Next door?"] This farm covers two counties, so the next county is not very far away. It is almost next door. I am only submitting to the House that it is assumed that this person has plenty of capital and has expert assistance available to him and, from all the information at our disposal, it is a reasonable assumption to declare that the answer to the second question, namely, "Can food production be increased on the farm?" would be "Yes."

Mr. Jackson: To go back to category B for a moment. This farmer is not able to get another farm because he is in category B. They will not reply to his inquiries. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to realise that category B in Breconshire may not be category B in other counties.

Mr. Williams: That is perfectly obvious. There are 62 counties with perhaps a different basis in each county as to soil, climate and all the rest.

Mr. Jackson: They have been strict in Breconshire.

Mr. Williams: We have got to take the decision of the County Executive Committee when they place a farm in category A, B or C. We simply take their standard.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman is going on to the probability of improvement in production. Is it the case, as my hon. Friend stated, that the two Agricultural Committees were against the tenant farmer being removed from the farm?

Mr. Williams: I understand it is quite true that the Brecon and Radnor War Agriculture Executive Committees suggested that the notice to quit ought not to be permitted, but there was also, I believe, in their minds at that time an element of doubt as to the possibility of speculation. Be that as it may, the War Agriculture Executive Committee, who are only invited to investigate and report, are not entitled to take decisions. The final decision, after careful examination of all the data, must inevitably be left to the Minister who accepts full responsibility for any decision he takes in any individual case.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: I would like to intervene because I know the right hon. Gentleman is very anxious to get the whole of the facts. I take it that it is on the advice of the War Agriculture Executive Committee that the Minister must form his opinion, and, possibly his decision. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to one committee. Will he now tell us about Monmouthshire?

Mr. Williams: I have no reason to disagree with the statement made by my hon. Friend. The farm crosses over into two counties and there is undoubtedly a good deal of local feeling about the matter. I have already admitted that the recommendation of the War Agriculture Committee was to the effect that consent ought not to be given to the notice to quit, but I would ask hon. Members to understand that there are other sources of information called upon by the Minister other than the War Executive Agricultural Committee. There are, for instance, those who conduct the soil survey and are able to give a technical description, field by field, of the lime, fertiliser or other deficiencies. There is the report of the Land Commissioner. The Minister is finally responsible, after a careful examination of all the data at his disposal, for any decision that is taken. Although there may have been a change since last October—I cannot argue that there has or has not been—when the Minister's consent was obtained it is true to say that in October of last year the category of that farm was B. There was room for improvement. It was felt that that improvement could and would take place and, therefore, the answer to the second question was "Yes"—that an increase in food production could be obtained,


and he had no alternative under the terms of Regulation 62 (4A) but to give consent to the notice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly appealed to me, because we were members of the same party, to view this thing from the same angle. All I can say to him is that it pleases me not at all to see any solitary farmer disturbed from his tenancy when he is trying to do the best he can with his land and with the capital at his disposal, but when a Minister is compelled to take action under a Regulation of this kind he has no alternative but to sift the information at his disposal in the best possible way and reach the most impartial decision it is possible for him to reach. I think that in all the circumstances I have no alternative but to say that nothing has happened since last October to change the decision then given by the Minister.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Do I understand that the permission to serve this notice was given upon two grounds? First, that there had been no speculation, and, secondly, that this building contractor was himself going to farm the land? Do I understand those to be the grounds upon which permission was granted?

Mr. Williams: I thought I had explained the position very clearly. I said that, as to the first buyer, the question of speculation did not crop up so far as the Minister of Agriculture was concerned. He was not involved until the owner of the land gave notice to the tenant. Therefore, speculation by the first buyer did not affect the Minister. When the second buyer gave notice to the tenant then the question of speculation cropped up and it was the duty of the Minister to ascertain whether, from all the signs, there was speculation in the air. The answer to that question was in the negative—that the owner wanted to farm the land himself. Therefore, speculation was not in question. The only other question was, "Could food production be increased?" And, from all the information available, the answer was "Yes."

Major Procter: I rise in order to point out, if I can, some of the lessons which should be derived from what we have heard to-day. Many Regulations have been passed by this House which have pressed very sorely upon individuals—farmers, working people and

others—and if we allow the lessons to be lost sight of, then we fail to do our bounden duty. I should like to point out that the first lesson we have learned from this story is that, evidently, there is a new type of landlord springing up throughout the country. It is a very sad loss to the country that the old type landlord—the old squire has often been derided in this House—is dying out and the nouveau riche are taking over the land much to the detriment of the tenants who have farmed it most successfully for many years.
In the second place, this Regulation was evidently designed to prevent farmers being dispossessed by speculators. What is happening up and down the country to-day is this: A speculator buys up a farm and puts in another man to hold until the time is ripe to build. A man who speculates in land in this way can drive a horse and cart through the Regulation provided that he sells the land to some apparently bona fide farmer, who promises to carry on the farm and produce better than the former tenant, whereas in fact the purchaser is in reality a builder. That is the weakness of this Regulation. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will see whether the Regulation can be amended in some way.
Why cannot the Minister of Agriculture have regard to methods which will reduce speculation? I would ask whether the Minister denies that speculation has taken place during this transaction. True there have been no final profits out of the speculation at the hands of the latest owner, but if ever there was a case of flagrant speculation surely it is that in which a man has bought a farm for £6,000 and a week later has sold it for £8,000. What other word is there but "speculation"?

Mr. Tom Williams: My hon. and gallant Friend will understand that the farm was sold originally at public auction. Any person could have purchased it. If some person came along later and offered the buyer a huge profit on his purchase there is no power in our possession to prevent him.

Major Procter: I cannot understand that argument at all. Just visualise this case. I know of a certain speculative builder who wants a choice piece of land on which to put up a row of houses. I therefore go


to the auction. The sitting farmer who wants land for his legitimate purpose also goes to the auction but he has not the knowledge which I have. I know that my man will pay £8,000. The poor fanner has no such knowledge and can pay only £6,000. I can beat that man step by step and force the price up to £7,000, if necessary. Does not the Minister say that that would be speculation? The fact that the farm was put up by auction does not alter the position one bit. You can speculate at an auction especially if you have prior knowledge that you can sell at a profitable price. Any speculative David can acquire a Naboth's vineyard provided he follows the procedure of the builder who bought this farm.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Since the tenant fanner wanted to sell his farm by auction, does not my hon. and gallant Friend think it desirable that the farmer should get the proper value for it?

Major Procter: I am not disputing that he should, but we are not discussing that point. I am not saying that speculation took place by the man who sold it, but it was speculation by the man who bought it for £6,000, and sold it for £8,000. It was also speculation when the builder paid a building price for farm land.

Sir Herbert Williams: Surely the man who paid £8,000 was a mug that he did not buy it first.

Major Procter: That is a good point, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for pointing it out. If the builder had done so, without an intermediary buyer it would have been obvious what he wanted the land for. He would have come within the terms of this Regulation. [An HON. MEMBER "No."] Yes, because he would have shown himself as a speculator by paying £8,000 for a farm that was not worth the money as a farming proposition.

Sir H. Williams: Why did he pay it?

Major Procter: Because it was worth the money from a builder's point of view. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to see whether the Regulation, which was designed to prevent speculators from oust-

ing honest farmers from their homes, can be strengthened so that if, at any stage in a series of transactions, speculation had taken place, the Minister could come out on the side of the dispossessed and not on the side of the so-called builder-farmers, who buy farms for holding and use them for building purposes afterwards.
There is one other point. In a series of transactions like this, in which farms may be bought for subsequent building operations, does the Minister assure himself, does he take any pledge from the buyer of the land, that there will not be any change within a period of years, from a farm to a building site? When the Minister agreed to this transaction—prima facie it seemed a very shady transaction for a so-called farmer to put £2,000 worth of building material on the site—what assurances did he get? It looks as though a speculative builder bought it, although he put forward the excuse that he was going to farm it. And in this way got round the Regulation.

Mr. MacLaren: Perhaps he is a member of the local council.

Major Procter: I do not know what he is, but I am not at all satisfied. He put his £2,000 worth of building material on the site and said it was for the purpose of putting up a temporary hut. I implore the Minister to re-examine this case and to see whether the wool has not been pulled over his eyes. Will the right hon. Gentleman make a fresh examination and see whether the Regulation has been broken in any respect, and, if it does not do what it set out to do that is to protect the sitting tenant, will he come to the House again to strengthen the Regulation so that these new types of landlord—

Mr. MacLaren: Are they not all like that?

Major Procter: —who put their money into land in order to escape inflation and dispossess farmers up and down the country, shall be prevented from putting legitimate farmers out of their tenancies? I hope in the case which has been raised to-day he will be able to restore the original farmer to his holding and thus prevent a grave injustice being done to a deserving man.

MINISTER OF LABOUR (SPEECH)

Mr. W. J. Brown: I wish to raise rather a different matter from that which is under discussion, but perhaps I may add one word to what has been already said. It seems to me that the conclusion to be drawn is that the Minister has done what he can do—

Major Thorneycroft: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. While I do not wish in any way to preclude the hon. Member from pursuing the no doubt very interesting matter which he is going to raise, I would ask whether it would not be convenient for the House to finish first the subject which was under discussion?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) caught my eye, and I called him. I do not know what matter he is going to raise.

Mr. Bellenger: We quite recognise, Mr. Speaker, that you have power to call any hon. Member who catches your eye, but I would like to point out that on a matter of great importance we shall want the attendance of the Minister, if some of us are successful later on in catching your eye. Would it not be for the convenience of the House, since the Minister concerned will be asked to stay in attendance until the matter can be raised after the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) has submitted the fresh matter, if we continued the Debate upon the same subject, and finished with it?

Sir H. Williams: The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), when he got your assent, Mr. Speaker, to raise this matter on the Adjournment, tacitly assumed that he and the Minister would have half an hour in which to deal with it. They have had an hour, owing to the other business being finished early. There are many other matters to be raised. Why should an hon. Member who expected half an hour, and has already carried on for an hour, think he is entitled to the rest of the Sitting?

Mr. Driberg: If, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown) should be graceful enough to yield now to the hon. and gallant Member for Stafford (Major Thorneycroft), who wishes to pursue this very important subject, would he be likely to be fortunate enough to catch your eye later?

Mr. Speaker: I hesitate to say in advance what I may do. I understand that the hon. Member who initiated the previous discussion has already had an hour. I must point out that the Minister has no right to make a further reply.

Mr. W. J. Brown: If the hon. Member has had an hour, he should not object that somebody tries to introduce another matter. My judgment upon that subject is that the Minister has done what he could, within the limits of the Regulation, which is narrowly drawn, but if the Minister reaches the conclusion, as I do, that the Regulation does not give him enough power to catch all sorts of people, who ought to be caught, because they are engaged in land speculation, I hope that he will not hesitate to come to the House of Commons for wider powers, which will enable him to deal with the kind of case which we have been discussing.
The matter which I want to raise is of a rather different order. I want to raise a question arising out of the speech delivered at Bristol on Saturday night by the Minister of Labour. In my opinion, that speech represented the greatest misservice and disservice to this country, at a very critical hour in its military fortunes. The description given by the Minister of the Debate here on Friday was an unscrupulous travesty of what took place. The statement of the Minister of Labour at Bristol that he had listened to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) attacking the trade union movement for half an hour, was as much a lie as the statement which the Minister of Labour described as "a lie" during the Debate on Friday. The issue between the Minister of Labour and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is not my primary purpose in raising this matter. I think that a grave disservice was rendered to the people in Britain on Saturday by a speech which suggested that on the eve of the second front there was a danger of 3,000,000 people ceasing work in Britain. If the ordinary soldier took that seriously, it would send him into battle in a very downcast frame of mind. If the country treated it seriously, it would give a wrong impression of the attitude of organised labour in Britain. If the world treated it seriously, it would get a strange idea of the mentality of the people of Britain on the eve of the greatest military opera-


tion in history. There is no justification for what the Minister said on Saturday. It was not dissimilar to what he said here on Friday. He talked about the Government being confronted with a situation in which 3,000,000 men might be out of work. It was plain to those of us who know something about the labour movement, that he was referring to three main strikes. One was the coal strike, the second was the London bus strike, and the third was the gas strike. To suggest that the coal strike was the result of the work of outside agitators or "instigators," which needed to be put right by a special Regulation, is to suggest something which every Member, especially on this side of the House, knows to be untrue. There have been serious strikes in the coal trade and I, as much as anybody, deplore that they should take place in present conditions, but everyone of us knows that the cause of those strikes has not been the outside "instigation" of anybody. It has been the natural resentment of men at the anomalous terms of an award by the Porter Committee, which would not have been necessary if the Government had faced their responsibilities in the matter.
As regards the London bus strike, it is equally true to say that there is not the slightest foundation for suggesting that it was the result of outside instigators or inciters. I know something about that industry. The plain fact is that in that industry, the majority of the servants of which are represented by the union of which the Minister of Labour was general secretary until he became Minister of Labour, the cause of strikes is to-day, and has been for ten years past, the merciless speeding up of schedules by the London Passenger Transport Board. I think it a disgrace that a great trade union leader should get up and suggest that there was any danger of the strike of 3,000,000 men. There never was, and he knows it as well as I do.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: The Minister of Labour never said that, and I challenge the hon. Member in the name of honesty. The Minister never said that there was a danger of 3,000,000 people going on strike, and if the hon. Member refers to HANSARD he will find sufficient evidence to be truthful with the House.

Mr. Brown: I will pass over the last part of that statement because I want to deal with a serious issue. I listened to the speech of the Minister of Labour on Friday, and I read it on Saturday. Although it became clear on subsequent analysis that what he meant was, not that 3,000,000 men would go on strike, but that 3,000,000 men would be put out of work, the initial phraseology he used would have conveyed to anybody that what he had in mind was a strike of 3,000,000 men. Whatever he meant, I say that for the Minister of Labour to convey to the country that there was a danger of a stoppage of 3,000,000 men was utterly wrong and ill-founded.

Mr. E. Walkden: Will the hon. Member allow me—

Mr. Brown: No, I will not. My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to have his say when I sit down, and I hope I shall be allowed to develop a serious argument.

Sir Percy Harris: On a point of Order. I assume that my hon. Friend has advised the Minister of Labour that he is going to raise this criticism on the Adjournment? If so, a representative of the Ministry ought to be present.

Mr. Brown: I did not anticipate that, of the 324 Conservative Members who were here on Friday, there would be fewer than about 50 here to-day. I did not expect a situation in which the Debate would collapse so early, and what I am doing is to take advantage of the occasion which the Adjournment gives me, to raise certain matters about which I feel strongly.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: Even if 324 Conservatives are not here, there are others who are willing to take the hon. Member's place. Would it not have been a matter of courtesy for the hon. Member to have informed the Department?

Mr. Brown: When I came here to-day, I never thought there was an outside chance that the Debate would collapse so early. It is not my business to provide the Business for the day. That is the business of the Government, and it is the business of the supporters of the Government to sustain the Debate. If an occa-


sion arises when the Debate collapses early, those of us who feel strongly about matters are entitled to use Parliamentary time to express our point of view.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Tom Williams): I think it is fair to say that one of the three representatives of the Ministry of Labour is not in this country. Both the other two may very well be involved in meetings previously arranged over which they have no control, and it ought clearly to be understood that they are not subject to criticism for not being here. Neither of them enjoys the gift of prophecy, and I hope that hon. Members, in anything they may say, will have regard to the fact that their absence may be enforced.

Mr. Brown: I do not make a word of complaint that no representative of the Ministry of Labour is here. If I had given notice a week ago to raise this matter on the Adjournment, and if no Minister was here, I would have had reason to complain, but I have no reason to complain, and I have made no complaint. If neither of the representatives of the Ministry can be here I am sorry. But I need only point out that there are many hundreds of towns in Britain, besides Bristol, and if there is anything I say to which the Ministry of Labour wants to reply, there are plenty of Saturday evenings, and many towns, where he can do it.
The Minister's speech at Bristol misrepresented the position to the country. What was the picture that he drew? Here was Britain on the edge of a great military operation, and here was a "vast industrial volcano" developing under the feet of the Government; that industrial volcano was in the main the result of "outside inciters" and "instigators," and nothing would meet the situation but the adoption by the Government of extraordinary Measures such as Regulation IAA. I affirm that that is a travesty of the situation in Britain at this time, that the Minister did a public disservice in presenting it as a picture of Britain at this time, and that he did not at Bristol give a single convincing reason for the adoption of that Regulation. What are the considerations that arise? When the House is asked to adopt, and the Minister advocates a Regulation of that kind, we

are entitled to ask a number of questions. One, have the Government powers enough under the existing law to deal with the situation? Two, if they have not, is it necessary for them to acquire additional powers? Three, if they have, is this the power that ought to be acquired? Four, will this power, if applied, achieve the desired result? Five, what will be the effect of the exercise of that power on the trade union structure in Britain? Finally, what will its effects be on the long-term approach to peace in Britain?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is reopening the question that we debated last Friday. That, clearly, is out of Order. He cannot revive a Debate that has already been concluded, for there is a rule against debating the same subject in one Session.

Mr. Stokes: If the Minister took part in the Debate and then goes into the country and uses arguments which he never used in the Debate, although he had an opportunity, surely a Member has a right to answer him on the Adjournment?

Mr. Speaker: Not necessarily. Some particular new aspects put by the Minister in his Bristol speech can be discussed, ibut not the whole subject.

Mr. Bowles: Surely the position is this. If my hon. Friend keeps off the Debate or anything the Minister said in the Debate, he is in Order. If he refers only to what the Minister said at Bristol, he is in Order.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is also out of Order if he discusses the decision we came to in the Debate.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: It seems to me that the Rule concerning repetition is becoming somewhat chaotic, because only the other day the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) again brought up the subject of the Jews in the Polish Army, which was a distinct repetition of a previous Debate, and no exception was taken to it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member was allowed to raise it again because I understood that there were new facts. The hon. and gallant Member will recollect that he himself has fallen a victim to that Rule.

Mr. Brown: I want to deal with what I regard as this utterly deplorable speech at Bristol. It seems to me that, subject to what you say, Mr. Speaker, I shall be in Order in attacking the Minister for the way he presented the case of the House of Commons to the country, and that I would be justified in attacking either the grounds he put forward, or the grounds he failed to put forward; that is, both the positive and the negative aspects of the speech at Bristol. It was a deplorable performance. The Minister gave no evidence that this Regulation was necessary. It is true that he said he had a volcanic situation to deal with, but he did not give the slightest evidence that that was the result of outside instigators or inciters. He gave no evidence that the Government did not already possess adequate powers. The present powers of the Government are very wide, and it would not exaggerate too much to say that they have power to put us in prison every time we sneeze. They can put us in prison for "causing alarm and despondency"; they can put us in prison for "conduct prejudicial to the safety of the realm." They have an omnibus power, under 18B, to put us in gaol with no ground at all cited for doing it. They have ample powers for dealing with the situation. The Minister, in his Bristol speech, gave no evidence that the existing powers were inadequate, nor did he give any evidence that this particular power was called for. This is a power which introduces a new principle into English law:—the principle of discrimination between two men who do the same thing if one is a trade unionist and the other a non-unionist, and which imposes penalties in one case which it does not impose in the other.

Mr. Lipson: On a point of Order. Is it the speech which the Minister made at Bristol that does all this, or is it a matter which was decided by the House last Friday?

Mr. Speaker: I have listened very carefully, and my impression was that the hon. Member was saying what the right hon. Gentleman had not said at Bristol. He was explaining what the Minister had not said, and referring to what had been said in the Debate last Friday. I think he had better be more careful.

Mr. Brown: I think it will put me in Order if I say that the Minister of Labour,

in that Bristol speech, advanced no justification for a new Regulation which differentiated between trade unionists on the one hand and non-unionists on the other. In that Bristol speech he gave no evidence that the policy he was pursuing would yield the desired result. The whole House would agree that the desired result was to prevent a diminution in output at a critical stage of the war effort. I share that view as much as any hon. Member. I have two sons in the Armed Forces, and I do not want their position to be made any more difficult by anything that happens in this country. But there are two ways by which production can be lost. One is by an outright stoppage, whereby so many thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of men cease work. The other, and, in my view, the much more serious, is by a diminution of enthusiasm on the part of millions of men, because they feel that something is being put across them behind their backs. I assert, with regret but with conviction, that the net result of what the Minister defended at Bristol, may be to stop a certain number of strikes, but with disastrous effects to the efforts of millions of men in the factories. I believe that that speech at Bristol will contribute largely to that result. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is my view, and I think I am as closely in touch with workpeople in the factories as other hon. Members.
I deplore unofficial strikes, but I cannot help recollecting that the Labour movement in Britain has been built up on strikes. The great dock strike of 1891 was led by Tom Mann, an engineer, and Mr. Cunningham-Grahame, a Scottish landowner, both of whom would have been liable to gaol under the policy advocated by the Minister of Labour in his Bristol speech as "outside instigators." But that dock strike was an historical landmark in the evolution of the Labour movement in Britain. Apparently the Minister has not heard that agitation is never the occasion of a strike, but that a strike is often the occasion of agitation! The Labour movement has been built up in this country on a recognition of that fact, which the Minister so signally failed to appreciate in the speech he delivered at Bristol.
I take the view that the policy advocated by the Minister on Saturday takes


us the most serious step, so far, along the road to the "servile State." I remember the book which Hilaire Belloc wrote on that subject 25 years ago. I was then a young man of 25, and I thought that he was sketching a wholly remote and fantastic possibility. But today I am not so sure that he was not wiser than all of us. Because he foresaw that the evolution of things in Britain might reach a stage where you had not only the power of the State, but, associated with that, the power of the trade unions, and that the two, operating together, would produce a situation not dissimilar from that which I saw in America two years ago. There the workmen were tied hand and foot by the union, and the union had sold out to the employer. In the 19th century there was a tendency for capitalists to compete against each other. Later, the tendency was for the capitalists to combine against the community. Still later, the tendency was for the trade unions to fight the capitalists. At a still later stage, the tendency is for the trade unions to combine with the capitalists. Then, you have both, marching straight ahead to the totalitarian State.

Mr. E. Walkden: And the hon. Member marches with the trade unionists.

Mr. Brown: It is true that I am a trade union officer, and it is because I have a deep love for the trade union movement that I am sensible of the danger. I see no greater danger confronting the trade unions than that of becoming the instrument of the capitalists in denying freedom to the workers.

Mr. E. Walkden: That is why the hon. Member has created another trade union.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman laughs at his own joke, amid the silence of the rest of us, who do not see it.

Mr. E. Walkden: We know that the hon. Member created another union, with someone else's money, and the rest of us do not know where the money came from.

Mr. Brown: It is true that I have started three unions—

Mr. E. Walkden: The hon. Member is an expert on it.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has made a charge that I have started a union on someone else's money. If that were

true, I do not know that there would be anything shameful about it, because it is part of the practice of capitalists to start businesses on borrowed money! But, in point of fact, I have started three unions. I formed the Civil Service Clerical Association. That was formed on the money of myself, and others like me, who were clerks in the Government service. It started with 300 members, and now has 150,000; and there has never been a penny of outside money in it. [Interruption.] If that charge is made, I think I ought to be allowed to reply. The second union which I helped to start was the Association of Prison Officers, and to that neither I nor anybody else contributed any money: it was formed by the men themselves, who came to us for help. A third union which I helped to form was the National Passenger Workers' Union, which was a breakaway from the union led by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour, the Transport and General Workers' Union. Towards that I advanced £200, which I rejoice to say has all been repaid.

Mr. E. Walkden: Was all that office equipment bought out of £200?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member knows well enough that when I speak about my personal affairs, popular or unpopular, I speak the truth. I have recited the simple facts about the three unions with which I have been connected. But it does not matter with what unions I have been connected. What does matter is the effect on the trade unions of the policy elaborated by the speech of the Minister of Labour at Bristol.
I hold the view that, when the war comes to an end, the problem of transition from war to peace is going to be very difficult and complicated. It is going to be much more difficult than at the end of the last war. Because of the degree to which this war has bitten deeper and hit wider than the last war, the problems of readjustment from war to peace will be correspondingly greater. One of the indispensable elements of a peaceful solution of our post-war problems is the existence of a trade union movement, strong, honoured, and independent.

Mr. Bartle Bull: I wish the hon. Member would organise a trade union for us in the House of Commons.

Mr. Brown: I could hardly advance with conscientious conviction the claim for shorter hours in which I should be involved. I should find it difficult to sustain the claim that Members should be paid their salaries, whether they were present or not. Altogether, the problem of leading a union for Members of Parliament would prove too difficult for so straightforward a mind as my own. Not even the assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) would enable me to overcome that. But I am serious when I urge that one of the elements of a peaceful transition from war to peace will be a strong, independent, and honoured trade union movement in Britain. I regret to say that I think that the path which is being taken will give us, at the end of this war, not a strong trade union movement, not an independent trade union movement, and not an honoured trade union movement. For the trade union movement of my day is apparently content to accept the position of junior partner with the majority shareholders of that side of the House, and to devote most of its energies to expelling any independent figure in its own ranks! I regard it as a tragedy that the trade union movement of Britain should be taking that line. I think it is taking, unconsciously, the line which was taken by social democracy in Germany, which brought Hitler to power. I see in it a replica of what happened in Austria. I marvel that Members on this side of the House, with the experience of all Europe before them, should be so blind as they apparently are.
There was one other thing which the Minister said at Bristol to which I wish to make a reference. He attacked the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale for knocking down "the base ladder whereby he did ascend."—He so far misconceived the situation as to invert it! The charge against the Minister of Labour, in his speech at Bristol, is that he was knocking down the base ladder by which he did ascend, not in form, but in fact. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was a heavier ladder."] Yes! it is a much heavier ladder for it has a heavier weight to bear. I want to say that I think there is a national interest in asking the Minister of Labour, as the price of his office, to refrain from making any more speeches whatever.

Mr. E. Walkden: What advice to offer.

Mr. Lipson: Would the hon. Member be in favour of free speech for Ministers?

Mr. Brown: Certainly, I am only asking for silence, not commanding it. I ask for a little self-discipline by the Minister of Labour. I am confident that, every time the Minister speaks in defence of the kind of Regulation discussed on Friday, something of the heart goes out of the working class movement in Britain, something disappears of the spirit with which the masses of the people in Britain entered upon the war, something diminishes of the hopes they entertain of the outcome of the war, and a deeper note of despair and cynicism settles in among the mass of the people. For all these reasons, I deeply regret the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made at Bristol, and I should have liked to have answered it before the right hon. Gentleman made it. I sought the opportunity of answering it before he made it, on Friday. Now I take the opportunity, after he has made it, of replying to it on Tuesday. There are times when it is expedient in the capitalist interest to embrace the trade unions. Do not carry the embracement to the pitch of strangulation, or you may find that you may have in your arms, not a living lover, but a dead corpse.

Mr. Driberg: Since the joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture has been good enough to remain in the House, may I ask him one question in support of the demand, urged by the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Procter) for the strengthening of Regulation 62 (4A)? Did I understand him to say that one of the two considerations on which the Minister confirms these orders to quit is the possibility of an increase in production? If so, surely, the interests of production must be so paramount with the Minister that something less vague and uncertain than a mere possibility must be demanded? Does he not consider the probability as well as the possibility—the new purchaser's record and experience as a practical farmer, and so forth? Can he reconsider strengthening that Regulation?

Mr. Stokes: On a point of Order. Has the Minister exhausted his right to speak? May he not answer a question and that is all?

Mr. Briberg: Surely, by leave of the House, he can give an answer?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister having spoken, he can only speak again with the leave of the House.

Mr. T. Williams: I certainly do not wish to intervene to rob other hon. Members of their prescriptive right. I would only say that the Minister does take into consideration every relevant fact bearing upon future production.

NEWSPAPER CARTOON

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: I want to raise, very briefly, another matter which I think is urgent in the public interest.

Mr. Sloan: On a point of Order. Am I not entitled to continue the discussion that was raised previously?

Mr. Speaker: Personally, I thought it was on rather delicate ground, and did not know how far any further debate could be in Order, or, in fact, how far it could he carried on. It seemed to me better to switch over to something else. Besides, we had three-quarters of an hour on it.

Sir A. Knox: I wish to draw attention to a cartoon in to-day's "Evening Standard." I do not know whether every hon. Member has already seen this cartoon, but I submit that it is a cartoon which is really detrimental to the war effort. It represents the heads of three Allied Governments in a most undignified position acting as gangsters ready to sabotage the war effort. I contend that, when this paper arrives in Lisbon, it will find its way to Germany, and this picture will be reproduced in every journal of our enemies in support of their propaganda. I would like to point out that the "Evening Standard" is the property of a very prominent member of His Majesty's Government. It is nothing less than astonishing that a cartoon of this type should be allowed to appear in the Press in London to-day. I would like to draw the attention of the House to it, and to suggest that steps should be taken, in the interests of the war effort, to prevent a recurrence of any such cartoon.

Mr. Stokes: Will the hon. and gallant Member explain the cartoon?

Mr. Driberg: When the hon. and gallant Member suggests that publication should not be allowed, may I point out that there is no censorship of the Press except on security grounds? Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest an Ell-embracing censorship?

Sir A. Knox: I suggest that, on security grounds, it is absolutely wrong. It is feeding enemy propaganda.

Mr. Driberg: That is not a question of military security.

Captain Cunningham-Reid (St. Marylehone): I have just this moment got hold of this cartoon and some hon. Members are wondering what it depicts. It is by Low, and shows three Kings, King George of Greece, King Peter of Jugoslavia, and King Victor Emmanuel, peering round a doorway with pop-guns in their hands, and with the caption, "De-Partisans." It seems to me that the main complaint of the hon. and gallant Member who has just raised this matter is that this is not conducive to helping the war effort. In other words, we should not poke fun at the heads of Governments with which we are negotiating. In this Low cartoon—[An HON. MEMBER: "Very low"]— that was an unconscious pun—these three kings are taking pot-shots at the partisans.

Mr. Stokes: Will the hon. and gallant Member point out to the House that a cork is attached to a piece of string?

Captain Cunningham-Reid: I did not realise that it was as ineffective as all that. Really, things are getting past a joke if we are going to raise such complaints in this House, because Low, as we all know, is always taking pot-shots at the high and mighty. He does not hesitate to have pot-shots at Roosevelt and Stalin and even at our own Prime Minister—[An HON. MEMBER: "Lord Beaverbrook"]—or even at his boss. The only exception one can possibly take to this cartoon is that it is rather obscure, and I do not believe that many people would understand it, while it is certainly not as funny as Low generally is. The main idea, I suppose, is that the three kings stand for the old order of things and against progressive Partisans. There are millions in this country who think exactly the same thing, but, just because one or two Members of Parliament take a different point of view, they automatically feel that no


newspaper has the right to publish a cartoon which happens to lacerate their own particular tender susceptibilities. I believe this to be a case of "much ado about nothing."

Mr. Beverley Baxter: I am sure that the House will not expect me to express any opinion upon cartoons, the policy that they represent or how they are produced. Perhaps I have no knowledge of what goes on inside newspaper offices but can only look at it in wonderment from outside. What I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, is addressed to you personally and perhaps, as a matter of courtesy, I should have let you know beforehand. On the second day of the Empire Debate I was called to Order by various Members of the House, through yourself, who with your accustomed courtesy and kindness rather indicated that I was on the wrong lines. I referred to an hon. Member on the opposite side as the "hon. and gallant" Member and then said that I used the word "gallant" only in its Parliamentary sense. I was endeavouring to explain, when the Noble Lord opposite and many others who were very angry with me, and the leader of the Communist Party, asked you, Sir, to protect the hon. and gallant Member. I then wanted to explain that the previous day the hon. and gallant Member had made a very serious aspersion against me in connection with Canada, that I was rather using the custom of this House—which differs slightly from the Biblical injunction—if you are struck upon the cheek to strike back on both cheeks. Having cogitated over your gentle and courteous rebuke at that time, I want to ask your advice about this matter.
I can quite understand that you may not care to reply to-day, but, like many other Members on these occasions, I am a little puzzled as to the style in which we address each other. It appears that in regard to the hon. and learned Member, the word "learned" applies to anybody connected with the law no matter in what obscure capacity it may be. There was a time when we understood that it was confined to K.Cs. but now I find it applied even to solicitors in this House—[HON. MEMBERS:"No."]—perhaps wrongly—and it is because of that class of error that I want some advice about the position of current Members of the House. A

speech was made two or three weeks ago by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. W. Edwards) who had served as a stoker during this war. My hon. Friend who sits next to me here referred to him as the "hon. and gallant" Member. It is possible that the gentlemen who report us so faithfully in the OFFICIAL REPORT did not hear the word "gallant," but it was left out of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and perhaps for their guidance we might have your Ruling. It is possible, Mr. Speaker, as you will agree, to be gallant though not necessarily holding a commission. I think we shall all agree on that. There is the case, for example, of the hon. Member the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert). He was a captain in the last war, and not only did he deserve the Parliamentary use of that phrase, but he was a very gallant officer, but in this war he is only a petty officer. Can we possibly refer to him as the "hon. and formerly gallant Member"?
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you can advise us in this matter. There are many Members, since we must speak bluntly, who had to choose when the war came between continuing their service in the Army or Navy and giving their whole time to this House, and nobody is in a position to criticise that decision. The M.P. who goes out to fight deserves all praise, but also the man who conscientiously realises that his constituency must be looked after in war time equally is above criticism. But we use the word "gallant" in respect of a man who has gone out and faced the terrors of the battlefield and, equally, in respect of the man who gave up his uniform when the war came. I wonder if the term could be left to those who serve actually in a theatre of war. Would that not help the embarrassment of some of us, because the traditions of this House are very dear to Members? It would be monotonous if only one adjective were used—the "honourable." The little changes make a break in the day's proceedings. I would be the last to interfere with the very honoured traditions of this House, but if, Sir, you could give some guidance or tell us later, I and many others would be glad of your clarification of this issue.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot pretend that I can give the hon. Member a considered reply on this question of "learned" and


"gallant." I have always understood that "learned" is rather reserved for those who are K.C's, and I thought the hon. Member was in error when he suggested that solicitors were entitled to it. I think not; that is my impression. As far as the title "gallant" is concerned, when I intervened on a former occasion I thought that he was casting some reflections on the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) and therefore I intervened. My impression is that one gives the title "gallant" to one who one knows has served in the Forces or taken part in active service, such as the hon. and gallant Member for Whitechapel (Mr. W. Edwards) or the hon. and gallant Member the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert): there are other Members who have been in the Services, have come back here and have put their names on the Order Paper as "Mr." So-and-So instead of "Captain" or "Major" So-and-So, and I think that that probably means that they have severed their connection with the Services and do not expect to be called "gallant." Those who still retain their military titles, I think, appreciate the compliment which the House gives them by calling them "gallant."

Mr. Baxter: I thank you, Sir, very much for that explanation; I think it very helpful. Your Ruling that, broadly speaking, it should be those taking part in active warfare is a great help to the House. May we hope that those Members who held rank in the Regular Army before the war and have decided that their duties are here, will drop that rank and refer to themselves as "Mr." like the rest of us who are taking a part in the war effort, and, therefore, do away with this anomaly.

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the individual Member to settle for himself with his own conscience.

Mr. Raikes: I hardly know, after this discussion, whether to refer to the hon. Gentleman opposite as the hon. Member for St. Marylebone or the hon. and gallant Member and so I refer to him as both, because there are certain observations that he passed upon the "Evening Standard" caricature upon which I feel that I should offer one or two remarks. I thought that the hon. and gallant Member treated that caricature rather lightly on the ground

that Low always has a shot at people in high places and must not be taken too seriously. I think the House is rather inclined to forget that this is a caricature aimed at two Kings who have sacrificed their thrones in this war for the sake of the Allied cause, and while persons in high places can well look after themselves I think it is a little different in the case of these men who are in exile and who have risked their all for the cause of the United Nations. My hon. Friend, or shall I say my bon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) pointed out that such a caricature was likely to be detrimental to the war effort in so far as it held up to ridicule the accredited leaders of certain Allied Governments. The other hon and gallant Member said that, after all, these Kings represented the old order in Europe as against the new, which many millions of people are longing to see in operation.
I think this the moment when I might say a little about the old order which inspired the King of Yugoslavia to take up the reins of government at a very vital moment in the history of this war, which inspired him not only to lose his throne but, through his accredited Government, to bring Yugoslavia, at that stage mainly Serbia, into the fighting line, thus giving a breathing space to Greece and to Russia which may have made a difference in the year 1941 which will only be measured by the centuries. For my part I am appalled when I see a young man of that character, who has taken those risks, held up as a sort of Aunt Sally by a somewhat low caricaturist who finds it necessary to make that sort of appeal in order to maintain his reputation for humour. There is the further question of the King of Greece, who, again, is held up as potting with a gun and a cork at partisans round the corner. I remember a time not so very long ago when hon. Members in this House thanked heaven that there was in Greece a King who was prepared to carry on a war against not only Italy but against Italy and Germany at once, when we were alone, and who, by the courage and the determination he and his people showed, aided what Yugoslavia had done.

Mr. McKinlay (Dumbartonshire): Could I rise to a point of Order, Mr. Speaker? The hon. Member is becoming very provocative and I have heard hon. Members ruled out in this House for discussing the


ruler of a friendly nation. My point is, that if the hon. Member is permitted to enumerate the virtues of the Royalists who have been caricatured, then I submit that we are entitled to answer.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: I do not think the hon. Member appreciated the main point of the cartoon. Is he aware that this cartoon deals with the present, not the past attitude of the two Kings to whom he has just been referring?

Mr. Speaker: I ought to point out that it is very doubtful how far this discussion is in Order. The only point at issue is whether or not it is going to help, or otherwise, the war effort. The merits of the cartoon must fall under that definition.

Mr. Raikes: I appreciate your Ruling, Sir, and I do not wish to labour the point. I am grateful that I have had the opportunity of pointing out that there are many in this country who feel that that type of cartoon, issued with the object of bringing into disrepute men who have gallantly served the Allied cause at certain periods, quite irrespective of what form of Government there may be in those countries at a later stage, can cause nothing but pain and grief to many persons who hold those particular individuals still in respect in their own countries. If my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe, in raising this point, has enabled persons who will see this cartoon to realise that there is another feeling in this House, rather different from that of Mr. Low, I shall feel that it has not been raised in vain.

Mr. Driberg: But what is the hon. Member going to do about it? Is he suggesting total censorship of the whole Press, or is he suggesting that the Lord Privy Seal's newspaper should be suppressed under Regulation 2D?

Mr. Raikes: I am not suggesting that there should be a total censorship of the Press. I am suggesting that if this type of cartoon is criticised in this House the attention of the Ministry should be brought to the fact that many of us regard that type of cartoon as repugnant and rather dangerous and that there should be some restraint upon the type of person who does that cartoon.

Mr. Driberg: Which Ministry? There is no Minister responsible.

Sir Edmund Findlay: There is a Minister responsible—the owner of the paper.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I only desire to say that I am one of those who believe that both in war-time and peace-time there should be the greatest possible liberty to criticise, and most certainly liberty for the Press. It would be bad for this country if we ever suffered the censorship of the Press which has been the lot of other nations. However, I do not think there is any Member of this House who would not agree that in the present state of our foreign relationships it behoves everyone to be careful not only in what they say but in what they write. Without expressing any view one way or the other, as to whether one type of government is better than another type of government, I would point out that although the written and spoken word has a tremendous effect, nothing has such an effect as a cartoon, and particularly one drawn by so brilliant a master of his art as Low. From the point of view of the cartoonist, it is a magnificent cartoon. At the present moment foreign affairs, as regards Yugoslavia, Greece and Italy, are, to put it vulgarly, pretty tricky, and I cannot believe that it will help the solution of the problems with which the Government are faced at present for that sort of cartoon to influence public opinion, as it may do, in a certain way. It is quite right that papers should influence public opinion, it is quite right that caricaturists should have liberty, but there are a time and a place for everything, and I cannot help thinking that at this particular juncture, when our relationships with the South-Eastern European States will have a profound effect not only upon the conduct of the war but upon the future of Europe when the war is over, it is inadvisable that that particular cartoon should have appeared.

COAL MINERS (COMPENSATION)

Mr. George Griffiths: I want to raise one or two points which have nothing to do with cartoons but with bread and butter. I am sorry I have not been able to give to the Minister of Fuel and Power or to the Parliamentary Secretary notice of this question. It is a question affecting the mining industry, and the


people in it who can ill afford to be affected in this way, and concerns compensation. I had a letter this morning which upset me very much. It is upsetting the mining community, the men who are getting the coal, and the entire industry. The first case I want to mention is that of a widow who lost her husband in the second week in January this year, and we are now in the fifth month. She has not had a penny of any kind, except from the Poor Law authorities. The Carlton Main Colliery Company have agreed that this widow is entitled to £400; they agreed this three months ago, but she has not received a penny up to date. Therefore I want to know whether some means can be devised whereby people entitled to such money can get it more quickly than they do at present.
Now I want to draw attention to the case of a man who has been injured, and who cannot work. His compensation

has been wiped out entirely; all he has been given is a declaration of liability. This matter was raised at a branch meeting at Frickley last Sunday and caused great indignation. This man, who has been a coal-face worker, has suffered a serious injury. The medical profession say that he can work, but the man conscientiously states that it is impossible for him to work. I wish I could have followed the speech made by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), because there is nothing that causes greater discontent in the mining industry than for mine-workers to feel that one of their own men has been dealt with unjustly. So I ask the Home Secretary and the Minister of Fuel and Power to look into these cases, and in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for having allowed me to catch your eye for a few minutes.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.